IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8358 of 1996 Between: Penta Narasimhamurthy and 17 others ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The District Judge & Estate Abolition Tribunal, Srikakulam and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8358 of 1996 ORDER: The writ petitioners are the legal representatives of the original claimant late Sri Penta Gunnaiah who had filed the claim before the 2nd respondent-Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, under Section 56 (1) (c) of the A.P. Estate (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, for grant of ryotwari patta on the ground that there was a dispute as to who is the lawful tenant. During the pendency of the proceedings before the 2nd respondent. Sri Jagannadha Sahu another claimant, died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The 2nd respondent allowed the petitioners’ claim and granted patta in their favour. Aggrieved thereby, the legal representatives of Sri Jagannadha Sahu, and the respondent Sri K.Raghunandam Panda, preferred two appeals before the 1st respondent-District Judge, Estates Abolition Tribunal, Srikakulam. The appeal filed by the legal representatives of Sri Jagannadha Sahu was dismissed on the ground that they failed to prove their claim. The appeal filed by the legal representatives of Sri K.Raghunandam Panda was allowed on the ground that the documents filed by the petitioners herein before the 2nd respondent, did not relate to the property, they had failed to prove that they were in possession of the property and they had to base their claim on their own evidence and not on the weakness of the respondents’ case. The order of the 1st respondent is a detailed and well considered order. 2. While Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the findings recorded are erroneous, it must be borne in mind that the jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate. This Court in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the 1st respondent. It is only if the findings are perverse or are based on no evidence would this Court interfere. The order of the 2nd respondent does not suffer from any such infirmity necessitating interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ December 1, 2009 kvr