IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1523 of 2002 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Madugula, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Smt. Teegala Venkataratnamma W/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Madugula, Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent i.e., Commissioner of Appeals, in Commissioner Appeal's proceedings No. P1/581/96 dated 30.10.2000 and quash the same as being illegal and arbitrary and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.K.SUBRAHMANYA REDDY, Senior Counsel, representing MR.C.V.RAJEEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: --- The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.1523 of 2002 ORDER: In this writ petition filed by Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Madugula, challenge is to the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals on 30.10.2000 in exercise of revisional powers under Section 7(d) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act, for short). By impugned order, Commissioner –second respondent herein–allowed revision petition filed by first respondent by granting ryotwari patta to her. The case of petitioner is that the land admeasuring Acs.10.00 in RS No.202 situated at Tatiparthy village of Madugula Mandal in Visakhapatnam District (hereafter, petition schedule land) is classified as ‘Gayalu’ (Assessed Waste Dry), in Survey and Settlement records of the Village. The Village was taken over by the Government on 26.5.1955 under the Act and vested in Government. Settlement rates were introduced in the Village on 01.7.1960. The further case of petitioner is as follows. First respondent encroached into Government land. Steps were initiated by Tahsildar for eviction. First respondent then filed her application before Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, on 12.10.1976 under Section 11(a) of the Act for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of petition schedule land. In her application, she alleged that she purchased petition schedule land under registered sale deed dated 08.9.1965 from Nellore Kondayya, who was in possession from about the year 1900 as tenant. Settlement Officer rejected her application as time barred. First respondent then preferred revision petition before the Director of Settlements (DoS), who also dismissed the same as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, first respondent preferred revision petition before the Commissioner, which was dismissed on 19.9.1980. First respondent then filed W.P.No.5637 of 1980. This Court allowed the same on 08.8.1986 and remanded the case to Commissioner. On such remand, Commissioner allowed appeal and remanded the matter to Settlement Officer. Settlement Officer again dismissed claim, aggrieved by which, first respondent preferred revision before DoS, which was dismissed on 12.4.1996. This was subject matter of further revision before the Commissioner, who allowed revision of first respondent granting ryotwari patta. The son of first respondent filed a detailed counter on her bahelf. Contents thereof in brief are as follows. The total extent of land in RS No.202 corresponding to OS No.17/B bearing patta No.55 known as Elugubanti Jore is Acs.22.25. Out of this, first respondent purchased Acs.10.00 under registered sale deed dated 08.9.1965 from Nellore Kondayya. Tatiparthy village was notified as tenure estate in Madugula Zameen Estate on 26.5.1955. The land in RS No.202 was wrongly classified as ‘Gayalu’ in Survey and Settlement records. Therefore, Nellore Kondayya applied for grant of ryotwari patta on 02.8.1960. The decision was not taken by Settlement Officer. After purchasing the property, first respondent applied for ryotwari patta on 12.10.1976, which was enquired into. The Settlement Officer and DoS rejected the claim and Commissioner initially remanded the matter to Settlement Officer. After remand, first respondent gave evidence and also examined P.W.2, who deposed about the facts. The Government did not cross-examine witnesses. In spite of the same, Settlement Officer and DoS rejected grant of patta, which has been set aside by the Commissioner, who ordered grant of patta. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that Commissioner of Appeals has verified entire record like Cowle deed, cist receipts, certified copies of cultivation accounts and certified copies of survey and settlement adangals, and came to the conclusion that the land is not Banjar land and is cultivable land, and accordingly granted patta. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) submits that in the Settlement survey, land has been classified as ‘Gayalu’. The same was also reflected when the Village was notified as Estate village. Land has been Banjar land and was never cultivated by Nellore Kondayya or first respondent. There is voluminous record, which was considered by Settlement Officer and DoS while rejecting claim of first respondent for grant of patta. He would submit that second respondent passed orders without considering the Settlement accounts and also the fact that land was taken over by Government on 26.5.1955, and therefore, grant of patta is contrary to Section 11(a) of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.K.Subrahmanya Reddy, appearing for first respondent, after taking this Court through copies of adangals for Fasli years 1400, 1402 to 1404, 1409, 1413 and subsequent years, submits that all along first respondent and one Chiluvuri Padmavathi Devi have been shown as cultivating the land, and therefore, mentioning petition schedule land in Settlement records as ‘Gayalu’ is obviously a mistake. He also submits that the factum of cultivation of land by first respondent and her purchasers is supported by number of cist receipts, which were personally verified by revisional authority, and therefore, in this writ petition, finding of fact cannot be interfered. It is now well settled that exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction depends on two things. There should be grave error apparent on the face of record and/or it must be shown the decision maker had no jurisdiction to consider the matter. Even when a question of fact is involved, to a limited extent judicial review is permissible in Certiorari proceedings only if it is shown the fact finding authority acted in a perverse and unreasonable manner in coming to a conclusion and while doing so ignored relevant considerations and considered irrelevant factors. Under the Act, a person to be entitled to claim patta must be able to show that he/she has been in possession and cultivating the land prior to 01.7.1945. Relevant evidence for the purpose would certainly be Cowle deed, cist receipts, adangals and such other documents. First respondent relied on as many as 23 documents including notice issued under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, to show that she was in possession of petition schedule land. The Cowle deed of 1943 and cist receipts evidencing payment of cist by Nellore Kondayya would certainly show that as on 01.7.1945, first respondent’s vendor was in possession and cultivating the land. The facts essential for attracting the provisions of Section 11(a) of the Act having been established, petition schedule land cannot be treated as Banjar land. The final fact finding authority, namely, Commissioner of Appeals, after appreciating documentary evidence, recorded the findings. Such conclusion based on evidence is not shown to be perverse or improbable. When the Commissioner has arrived at a conclusion after appreciating facts, regarding such facts ordinarily a writ of Certiorari would not lie. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) August 05, 2009 YS