IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10453 of 2000 Between: Mandal Revenue Officer Madugula,Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Peela Pydinaidu S/o.Appalanaidu R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 2 Putta Appalanaidu S/o.Apparao R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 3 Pentakota Appalanaidu S/o.Naganna R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 4 Papeti Venkuanidu S/o. Naganna R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 5 Yellapu China Nagayyamma W/o.Ramanaidu R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 6 Malla Appalanaidu S/o.Linganna R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 7 Peela Bangaruanaidu S/o.China Kannam Naidu R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 8 Tanakala Appalanaidu S/o.Kullu Naidu R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 9 Malla Pydithallamma S/o.Appalanaidu R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 10 Malla Appalanaidu S/o.Balarama Swamy R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 11 Peela Ramunaidu S/o.Pede Kannam Naidu R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 12 Malla Appayyamma W/o.Mallunaidu R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 13 Ravada Kona Abhai S/o.Appalakonda R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 14 Yellapu Purushottama Kesava Balarama Uma Cahandra- Shekar Rao,S/o.Vankatramana R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 15 Yellapu Pydithallamma W/o.Venkatramana R/o.K.J.Puram village,Madugula Mandal 16 The Commissioner of Survey,Settlements and Land Records A.P. Hyderabad 17 The Dsitrict of Settlements, A.P Hyderabad 18 The Assistant Settlement Officer Anakapalli,Visakhapatham District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 To issue a writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Oficer, Anakapalli,Visakhapatnam Dist, in SR.No.11(a) 494/67/VSP/dt.1-1-1998, as confirmed by the Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, the 17 th respondent in proceedings R.P.No.323/77 dated 23-10-1982 and by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, 16 th Respondentm in case No.P1/1340/87 dated 21-12- 1994, and quash the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent : MR.A.RANGACHARYULU FOR R4 GP FOR REVENUE FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.10453 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam (Respondent No.18) in S.R.No.11(a)494/67/VSP dated 11.1.1968 as confirmed by Respondent Nos.17 and 16 in proceedings dated 23.10.1982 and 21.12.1994 respectively and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the landholders of Madugula Zamin Estate granted permanent tenancy in favour of one Vaddadi Venugopala Bhupati Deo by a registered deed dated 25.8.1892 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.660 admeasuring Ac.34-28 cents of Madugula village. Initially, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli (18th respondent) rejected the claim of claimants for grant of patta. Thereafter, claimants approached the Estates Abolition Tribunal, which remanded the matter twice to the 18th respondent and finally, the 18th respondent vide proceedings dated 11.1.1968 granted patta leaving balance area covered by tank and road poramboke. The Director of Settlements (17th respondent) took up suo motu enquiry and set aside the orders of the 18th respondent dated 11.1.1968 and cancelled the patta. Aggrieved by the same, claimants approached the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue confirmed the orders passed by the 17th respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, claimants approached this Court and this Court by order dated 7.10.1977 quashed the orders passed by the Director of Settlements as well as Board of Revenue and remanded the matter to the Director of Settlements for fresh enquiry and disposal, according to law. The Director of Settlements, after hearing the case, confirmed the patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli in S.R.No.11(a) 494/67 dated 11.1.1968 by orders in R.P.No.323/77 dated 23.10.1982. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (16th respondent) in Case No.P1/1340/87. After perusal of the records and the arguments of the counsel on either side, the revisional authority held that land covered by tank and roads was already excluded in the initial stage itself and with regard to permission required from the Collector under Section 20(a) of the Estate Land Act, since the transaction was prior to commencement of the said Act, there was no need for permission of the Collector under Section 20(a). It was also held that the Mandal Revenue Officer in his grounds stated that the tank bed lands were leased out for cultivation and the claimants and their predecessors are in occupation and cultivating the lands and that there was no change in the nature of land. Therefore, the revisional authority while dismissing the revision filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, confirmed the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli and Director of Settlements granting patta in favour of claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides and perused the entire record right from the year 1968, which revealed that a portion of the land covered by tank and road poramboke was already excluded in the initial stages and as there was no ayacut available for the tank, it was treated as a ryot cultivated land. Under those circumstances, particularly when the matter relates to prior to commencement of Estate Abolition Act, the provisions of such Act were not applicable and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records in confirming the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli and Director of Settlement cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. It is a pure question of fact and all the authorities concurrently held against the petitioner herein. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that no ground is made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 2.6.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.10453 of 2000 2.6.2009