THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19552 of 2002 16.06.2010 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District ...Petitioner And The Commissioner of Appeals, O/o Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19552 of 2002 ORDER: State of Andhra Pradesh represented by District Collector, Chittoor feeling aggrieved by the Order, dated 16.01.2001, of first respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Appeals (in the Office of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration) filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order. By impugned order, first respondent while setting aside the order, dated 31.05.1997, of the Director of Settlement (DoS) confirmed the order, dated 28.11.1986, of second respondent herein, namely, the Settlement Officer, Nellore, who granted ryotwari patta to respondents 3 to 5 herein in respect of land admeasuring Acs.31.65 cents in R.S.No.385P of Annasampalli Village of Renigunta Mandal of Chittoor District. The brief fact of the matter which is not seriously disputed is as follows. Respondents 3 to 5 herein and one B.Adilaxmamma and her supporters filed applications under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Estates Abolition Act, for brevity) being S.R.Nos.29/11(a)/86, 30/11(a)/86 and 31/11(a)/86 and 3, 4/11(a)/86. The applications filed by respondents 3 to 5 were supported by documentary evidence, namely, cist receipts for pre and post abolition period, B-Memos issued by Tahsildar, Chandragiri, and land revenue receipts for Faslis 1361, 1362, 1364, 1365, 1368, 1370 to 1372. After receiving notice, Mandal Revenue Officer, Renigunta, filed counter raising objections for grant of patta inter alia on the ground that the land is not ryoti land and that the claimants are not cultivating the land. Considering the evidence produced by respondents 3 to 5 and Adilaxmamma, second respondent by order, dated 28.11.1986 directed grant of patta to respondents 3 to 5. However, the claim of Adilaxmamma was rejected on the ground that she failed to produce any evidence and that the evidence produced by her is fabricated. Aggrieved by the same, Adilaxmamma preferred revision petition under Section 5(2) of the Estates Abolition Act being R.P.No.346 of 1987 before the Director of Settlements (DoS). The said authority also suo motu initiated revisional jurisdiction insofar as the grant of pattas are concerned to respondents 3 to 5. On consideration of evidence, DoS came to the conclusion that during pre and post abolition period, the land in R.S.No.385 of Annasampalli was classified as Poramboke, that the cist receipts produced before Settlement Officer is fabricated and the claimants failed to prove their case. Accordingly, he set aside the pattas granted to respondents in these cases. They then preferred second revision petitions under Section 7(d) of the Estates Abolition Act. Adilaxmamma also preferred revision petition. All the revision petitions were considered together by first respondent. Considering the record of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Renigunta, first respondent came to the conclusion that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not place any material to show that the land is Government Poramboke, that the cist receipts prove the continuous possession and cultivation of the petitioner during the pre and post abolition periods, while setting aside the order of DoS confirming the order of Settlement Officer. The contesting respondents filed common counter sustaining the impugned order. The District Collector has not filed any reply affidavit denying the allegations. The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the land is classified as Gutta Poramboke and therefore, the grant of patta under Section 11(a) of Estates Abolition Act is prohibited. She would urge that the land is not ryoti land as defined under Section 3(16) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 (Estates Land Act, for brevity) and therefore, the inference drawn by the DoS that the cist receipts and land revenue receipts are fabricated. In the absence of proof of cultivation that the land is not ryoti land, grant of patta is illegal. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submits that unless and until the land is one of the categories in respect of which, grant of patta is prohibited as per Section 3(16) of Estates Land Act, and even if it is classified as Poramboke land, grant of patta under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act is sustainable. He relies on Srinivasa Rao v State of Madras[1] and Full Bench Judgment of this Court in P.Chenchulakshmma v E.A.Tribunal[2]. He nextly contends that as the final fact finding authority, namely, first respondent having appreciated the evidence adduced by petitioners came to the conclusion with regard to two aspects of the matter that it is ryoti land and that the contesting respondents were in continuous possession of land, this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India may not be inclined to interfere with the finding of fact. Section 3 of Estates Abolition Act vests the entire estate in the State from the date of notification abolishing estates regulated by Estates Land Act. However, the proviso to Section 3(d) injuncts the Government from dispossessing any person of any land in the Estate, if such person is prima facie entitled to ryotwari patta. Section 11(a) is a statutory right conferred on every person in possession and cultivation of the ryoti land, and is to the effect that every person in Estate shall be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of ryoti land. Section 1(3) of Estates Abolition Act applies to all estates as defined in Estates Land Act, and therefore, Section 3(16) of the Estates Land Act has to be referred to while considering the question of grant of ryotwari patta. Section 3(16) of the Estates Land Act defines ryoti land means cultivable land in estate other than private land. Exclusionary clause excludes certain lands like tank beds, threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-sites from being ryoti lands. Insofar as lands which are set apart for common use, a ryotwari patta also cannot be granted. A Full Bench of this Court in Chenchulakshmma (supra) has considered the question whether the Settlement Officer/Assistant Settlement Officer can issue patta in respect of a grazing land or a Government Poramboke land or tank bed land. Making reference to Estates Land Act, 1908 as well as the provisions of Estates Abolition Act, 1948 the Full Bench held as under. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion; Lanka Lands, lands of the description specified in Section 3(16)(a)(b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act*, and forest lands are excluded from the purview of Section 13(b)(iii) of the Abolition Act and no ryotwari pattas could be granted to the landholder under that provision in respect of those lands. The mere non-user of the communal lands for the purposes for which they were intended and set apart, as on the date of the application of the Abolition Act to the estate is not material and does not alter their communal character, if, by the time the Abolition act came to be applied to the estate in which they are situate, they were lands coming within the description specified in Section 3(16)(a)(b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act. Despite the disuse to which they have fallen and despite the other users they have been unauthorizedly and illegally put to they would nonetheless continue to be lands belonging to the category specified in Section 3(16)(a)(b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act in the absence of any order under Section 20-A(1)(b) of the Estates Land Act. In this case, as found by the Settlement Officer and the second revisional authority, though Mandal Revenue Officer, Renigunta filed a counter alleging that the land in Survey Nos.360, 385 P of Annasampalli Village is a Gutta Poramboke, no evidence was adduced. Respondents 3 to 5 produced the pre and post abolition records. They produced the patta of 1939, dated 06.08.1939 in favour of Peruru Gangi Reddy, the predecessor of respondents, cist receipts for years 1944, 1947, 1950, land revenue receipts for various faslis and B Memos issued by Tahsildar, Chittoor, 1939 Fasli. Though an attempt is made by Assistant Government Pleader to discard the evidence, the submission cannot be accepted. When the statute confers the power on the decision maker to record finding of fact and such authority has done so, ordinarily in a petition for judicial review such finding of fact cannot be interfered, unless such finding of fact is perverse and no reasonable man would come to such a conclusion. It is also settled that merely because it is possible for the High Court to take a second view with regard to questions of fact, ordinarily such exercise is not undertaken by the Court of judicial review. After perusing the order of the first respondent, this Court is convinced that the finding of fact recorded by first respondent does not suffer from any perversity, or any other vice that can be pointed out. It is well settled that mere error of fact and mere error of law in the order of decision maker does not warrant issue of writ of Certiorari. An error pointed out must be error apparent on the face of record which is absent in this case (see Syed Yakoob v Radhakrishnan[3], H.B.Gandhi v Gopi Nath[4] and State of U.P., v Johri Mal[5]). 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) 16.06.2010 Pln [1] 1956 (1) MLJ 595 [2] AIR 1972 AP 1 (FB) * Section 3(16)(a)(b) and (c) of Estates Land Act, 1908, excludes (i) tank bed, tank bund lands, irrigation channels; (ii) threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-sites and other lands set apart for common use of the villagers, and (iii) lands granted on service tenure, from the definition of ‘Ryoti land’. [3] AIR 1964 SC 477 [4] (1992) 2 SCC Supp 312 [5] (2004) 4 SCC 714