THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.26554, 26555, 26558, 26631, 26641, 26643, 26673, 26679, 26719, 27374, 27474, 27479, 27488, 27489, 27490 and 27491 of 2003 Dated:02.12.2010 Between: Boddina Appa Rao, And others. ...Petitioners And Chief Commissioner of Land Administration of A.P., Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.26554, 26555, 26558, 26631, 26641, 26643, 26673, 26679, 26719, 27374, 27474, 27479, 27488, 27489, 27490 and 27491 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are filed against separate orders of the first respondent, namely, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA). The appeals before him were filed against a common order of the second respondent, namely, Director of Settlement (DoS). Besides this, the background of all the cases is similar, and therefore, it is expedient to pass a common order. Taking W.P.No.26554 of 2003, the brief fact of the matter may be noticed for appreciation of the controversy. In all other cases the facts are similar, except the extents and survey numbers in respect of which original patta was claimed. The petitioner’s father was allegedly in possession of the land comprised in survey Nos.99/1 and 101/1 admeasuring 0.48 and 1.38 hectares respectively situated at Kondagokira Village of Koyyuru Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. It was inam estate which was notified and taken over by the Government on 20.07.1955 under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Estates Abolition Act). After the demise of his father, the petitioner, statedly, continued in possession. The Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation, 1970 (Regulation II of 1970), which hereafter is called, the Regulation, came into force on 03.03.1970. About eight years thereafter, the petitioner filed application under Sections 7(1) and 9(1) of the Regulation claiming patta. The fifth respondent filed a claim petition contending that his father was cultivating under the original mokhasadar and that he gave permanent lease to the petitioner’s father after coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. The third respondent, namely, Settlement Officer – cum – Joint Collector (Settlement Officer), conducted enquiry after issuing notice to both the claimants. By an order in Case File No.64/77, dated 31.08.1978, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, and the Settlement Officer ordered the issue of original patta to the fifth respondent. Being aggrieved by the rejection of patta, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9(3) of the Regulation. The same along with other connected appeals was kept pending for about twenty years and it underwent as many as eighteen adjournments. The matter was listed for final hearing on 25.09.1997 before the DoS. The petitioner’s Counsel sought time on the ground that the lead Counsel was engaged in Visakhapatnam District Court. The adjournment was refused and the appeal of the petitioner along with 34 other appeals was dismissed by a common order dated 31.10.1997 by the DoS. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed further appeal under Section 9(3) of the Regulation before the CCLA. The counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. The contesting respondent also filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner. His submissions are twofold. The possession of petitioner’s father was much prior to coming into force of the Regulation and that the same stands proved by the documentary evidence like the D.C.B statement from 1947 to 1949, and that the same is not void under any other law. Secondly, he submits that when the petitioner has conclusively proved possession for eight years prior to coming into force of the Regulation, the Settlement Officer ought to have granted patta. Secondly, his submission is that the DoS passed orders without giving an opportunity although a request was made for adjournment. These contentions are refuted by the other side. The facts which are not disputed are that Kondagokira Village is an inam estate in an agency area which was taken over by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act. As it is an agency area, the person entitled for ryotwari patta could not have filed an application under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act. Such a person has to necessarily seek patta under Sections 7(1) and 9(1) of the Regulation. There is no dispute that before the Settlement Officer the petitioner produced some documentary evidence, which was not accepted. Before the appellate authority specific grounds were urged in support of the claim for ryotwari patta. The appellate authority is expected to conduct enquiry after affording a reasonable opportunity. A perusal of Section 9(3) of the Regulation and the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Rules, 1971, would show that the DoS is vested with quasi judicial powers. I n Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited v Lakshmi Chand[1] the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that a judicial/quasi-judicial authority has a duty to act judicially and that any quasi-judicial decision must satisfy the following criteria. (1) it is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the application of objective standards to facts found in the light of pre-existing legal rule; (2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties obligation affecting their civil rights; and (3) that the investigation, is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact. When the matter was kept pending for about twenty years from 1978 to 1997, and the matter had already undergone eighteen adjournments, granting sometime to the petitioner’s Counsel on the date of hearing would not have caused much prejudice to the other side, especially, when the fifth respondent was absent before the DoS (as seen from the order of DoS). Having regard to the factual background, this Court is of the considered opinion that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as he was not given opportunity to explain the documentary evidence to the appellate authority. A perusal of the order of the DoS would support the contention that it is an ex parte order. Insofar as the order of the CCLA is concerned, in the grounds of appeal the petitioner raised a plea that DoS failed to give reasonable opportunity in order to enable him to present his case. On this ground alone the impugned orders have to be set aside. The appellate authority, namely, the Director of Settlements, is required to consider the following questions. i) Whether the petitioners have proved possession of the schedule land over a period of eight years prior to coming into force of Regulation II of 1970; ii) If the answer to question No.(i) is in the affirmative, whether such possession is not void under clause (b) of second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 7 of the Regulation, and iii) Whether the respondents’ plea that a permanent lease was executed in favour of the petitioner after coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation I of 1970, renders the possession of the petitioners void? So as to enable the DoS to consider the issues as above or any other issues which may be raised by the parties to the order of the CCLA confirming that of the order of DoS which in turn confirmed the order of the Settlement Officer is set aside. All the matters are remitted to the second respondent with a direction to dispose of all the matters on or before 30.12.2010. The petitioners without waiting for any further notice of hearing shall appear before the second respondent with a copy of this order on 23.12.2010. It is made clear that if on that day the petitioners and respondents fail to appear before the second respondent, it shall be open to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.12.2010 vs [1] AIR 1963 SC 677