THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23206 OF 2008 DATED 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011 BETWEEN Tekumalla Premalatha …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23206 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order dated 05.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Revision Petition No.11/99-VSP. The matter arises under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1948’). Seeking grant of a ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act of 1948, the petitioner herein along with her siblings filed an application on 13.03.1986 before the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam. The ryotwari patta was sought in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.4.80 cents in O.S.No.3C of Kapparada Village, Visakha Urban Mandal, Visakhapatnam. The Settlement Officer, by order dated 20.04.1989, rejected the application on the ground of delay. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Director of Settlements affirmed the order under appeal. The same was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.11231 of 1995. This Court, by order dated 31.10.1997, set aside the orders of the authorities below dismissing the application on the ground of delay and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli, to consider the application for grant of ryotwari patta. Upon such remand, the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, by order dated 08.12.1998 rejected the application for ryotwari patta on merits. The petitioner and her sister, Y.Vani Bai, filed revisions before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in R.P.Nos.11/99-VSP and 12/99-VSP. By the impugned order dated 05.07.2008, the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dismissed the revision petitions. While so, the brother of the petitioner got impleaded in this writ petition as the fourth respondent. It is his case that he got impleaded in R.P.No.11/99 before the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and that aggrieved by the very same order dated 05.07.2008, he preferred a revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in CCLA Ref.No.P1/849/2008. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the same proceeding is impugned before two fora – one, before this Court in the present writ petition and secondly, before the revisional authority, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the facts set out in the writ affidavit would show the delay on the part of the authorities in dealing with the matter. He pointed out that his client had to approach this Court time and again owing to the said delay. Even if that be true, it cannot be accepted as a valid reason for circumventing the statutory authorities, who would be better equipped to undertake complicated enquiries on facts as would be required in matters arising under legislations such as the Act of 1948. Reference in this regard may also be made to the unreported Judgment of this Court in THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM v. SRI LANKA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY[1], wherein a Division Bench of this Court was seized of a similar situation where one aggrieved party under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 preferred a revision before the Chief Commission of Land Administration while another identically situated aggrieved person approached this Court. In such a scenario, the Division Bench observed that in its considered opinion the rival claims in the first instance should be adjudicated and decided by the statutory authorities, before permitting them to invoke judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench observed that as the claims of the rival claimants were in respect of the same land it would be inappropriate for this Court to decide the claim of the writ petitioners therein on merits while permitting the statutory authority to decide the claim of the other party on merits in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. The Division Bench pointed out that it was held and reiterated by Courts that when there are more than one application in respect of the same subject or same landed property, it would be appropriate and fair that all claims should be clubbed, heard together and disposed of by a common proceeding. This was obviously to safeguard that all claimants would know each other’s case and would have a reasonable opportunity to meet rival contentions, if any. Though in the present case, there are no rival claims in as much as the petitioner and the fourth respondent, being sister and brother are seeking issuance of a joint patta under the Act of 1948, the ratio of the Judgment aforestated would still apply on all fours. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, under Section 7(d) of the Act of 1948. In the event such a revision is preferred within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the revisionary authority shall entertain the same without reference to the limitation aspect as the petitioner was before this Court during this period challenging the said order. The revisional authority shall club the revision so filed by the petitioner with the revision of the fourth respondent in CCLA Ref.No.P1/849/2008 and dispose of both the revisions by a common proceeding, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. Keeping in mind the fact that the issue has been kept alive for well over three decades, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, shall dispose of the matters within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the case, interim order granted by this Court directing status quo to be maintained as on 06.11.2008 shall continue to operate. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/O VGSR/PGS [1] Writ Appeal No.1632 of 2001 dated 13.08.2002