IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 25172 of 1996 Between: 1.V.Subha Rao S/O Rama Rao Kakinada Rural Mandal E.G.Dist. 2.K.Nooka Raju S/O Chinnayya Kakinada Rural Mandal E.G.Dist. 3.V.Venkat Rao S/O Subha Rao Kakinada Rural Mandal E.G.Dist. 4.M.Nageswara Rao S/O Krishna Rao Kakinada Rural Mandal E.G.Dist. 5.K.Rama Krishna Rao S/O Surya Rao Kakinada Rural Mandal E.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.The Commissioner Survey Settlements And Land Records Hyderabad 2.The Direct Of Settlements Hyderabad 3.The Settlement Officer Visakhapatnam 4.Sri Nookalamma Vari Temple Kakinada Rural Mandal E.G.Dist .....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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the of nature of writ of Certionari, calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the 1st respondents in case no.2540 90 dt 6-9-96 which confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondents in revision petition no.134/86-b1 dt 21-6-1900 and quash them as illegal arbitrary and opposed to the principals of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.GURU DUTT Counsel for the Respondents: MR.METTA.CHANDRASEKHARA RAO The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No.25172 of 1996 ORDER: The petitioners in this writ petition claim that they are in continuous possession of land to an extent of Acs.5.87 cents in R.S.No.113/1 of Ramanayyapet village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. It is stated that the said village and the lands therein comprised in Pithapuram Zamin Estaste, which was taken over by the Government on 07.09.1949 and the Settlement Rights were introduced in the Estate w.e.f., 01.07.1959. The petitioners allege that since they are illiterates, they did not note that they are required to apply for ryotwari patta and as such, belatedly they applied to the Settlement Officer for grant of patta. 02. The Settlement Officer by his order, dated 07.07.1986, accepted the claim of the petitioners and granted ryotwari patta, overruling the objections of the fourth respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the fourth respondent filed a revision before the second respondent under Section 5(2) of the A.P. Abolition (Andhra Area) of Estates and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 which was allowed by the second respondent, vide proceedings in R.P.No.134/86-B1, dated 21.06.1990, whereby the patta granted in favour of the petitioners was cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioners state that they have moved the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, who is the further revisional authority against the orders of the second respondent. Since the said revision petition, being case No.P2, 2540/90, was also dismissed on 06.09.1996, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 03. The record shows that notice before admission was ordered in the writ petition on 16.12.1996 and the impugned orders of the first respondent and the second respondent were suspended. Later, on 05.03.1997, Rule nisi was issued and the writ petition was directed to be listed for final disposal. Thereafter, the writ petition had been listed on several occasions, once dismissed default and later restored, and is being heard today. 04. One of the main grievances urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners’ previous counsel was appointed as Member of the Income Tax Tribunal and left the profession, and that they had to engage another counsel for prosecuting the proceedings before the first respondent. However, when the revision petition came up for consideration before the first respondent, the counsel for the petitioners could not be present on account of death of his father and as such, the first respondent heard the arguments on behalf of the fourth respondent and in the absence of the petitioners’ counsel, reserved the matter for orders. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the principal grievance of the petitioners is that they did not have reasonable opportunity to make submissions before the first respondent, and as such, he prays that the matter be remitted back for re-consideration by the first respondent. 05. A counter affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent in this writ petition, wherein the aforesaid specific allegation of the petitioner mentioned at para-3 of the affidavit and Ground No.1 (b) of the grounds raised in the writ petition has not been contraverted and the entire counter affidavit is with reference to the merits of the claim of the fourth respondent. 06. In the circumstances, I am of the view that in the interests of justice, it would be appropriate to remit revision petition No.P2/2540/90 to the learned Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, to hear and decide the same, after issuing notice and after hearing all the parties concerned. It is made clear that all contentions of both the parties on merits are kept open and the learned Commissioner is free to decide the revision petition on its own merits in accordance with law. Status quo with respect to possession as is existing today shall continue, pending disposal of the revision before the first respondent. 07. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed by remitting the revision to the first respondent. No costs. ____________________ Vilas V.Afzulpurkar, J Dt.27.11.2008. VGB