THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.683 OF 2008 ORDER: 1 This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30.08.2007 in CMA No.12 of 2005 on the file of District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed confirming the order dated 07.10.1999 made by the Forest Settlement Officer in RC.No.B5/923/72. 2 Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner – State. None appears for the respondent. Perused the record. 3 The respondent herein in pursuance of a notification made under section 6 of the Forest Act, preferred a claim application claiming right over an extent of AC.1.62 cents in Sy.No.305/3 and patta No.264 of Pulluru village of Tholukodu Forest Block. The Forest Settlement Officer conducted an enquiry into the claim of the petitioner and by order dated 07.10.1999 upheld the claim of the respondent – plaintiff and directed exclusion of the said extent of Ac.1-62 cents from the Tholukodu Forest Block. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal in CMA No.12 of 2005 and the learned District Judge by the impugned order dismissed the said appeal. 4 As seen from the impugned order, the respondent claimant has adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of her claim during the enquiry conducted by the Forest Settlement Officer. The order of the Forest Settlement Officer would disclose that the land was held by the respondent’s father Ulliboinia Venkaiah under a patta issued by the then Jamindar of Tiruvur estate prior to the Abolition of the estates and it was an old patta and the documentary evidence produced by the claimant i.e. Ex.P.1 C.C. of 10-1 account, Ex.P.2 C.C of ADanagal for the fasli 1400 and 1401 and Ex.P.3 C.C. of ADangal for Fasli 1403, 1404 and 1405 and Ex.P.5 Cist receipts and Ex.P.8 Zerox copy of pattadar pass book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram establish the claim of the respondent and also her possession and enjoyment over the said land. There was no contra evidence adduced by the State to show that the said land is part of the reserve forest. The claimant also examined one Musalayya and also the Village Karanam who testified in support of the claim of the respondent. Thus, after conducting a due enquiry and based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant during the said enquiry, the claim of the respondent was upheld by the Forest Settlement Officer. The proclamation was issued under section 6 of the Forest Act calling for objections to be filed before 17.12.1974 whereas the claim was filed nearly 14 years later i.e. on 27.10.1988. The Forest Settlement Officer, however, condoned the said delay as enquiry was initiated suomoto. Simply because the respondent claimant could not file the objections within the time prescribed, her pre existing rights in the land as a pattedar in possession and enjoyment cannot be defeated, especially when she has duly established her claim of ownership, possession and enjoyment by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence. The Forest Settlement Officer was, therefore, justified in condoning the delay in filing the claim petition and also upholding the claim based on evidence. The impugned order of the District Judge confirming the order of the Forest Settlement Officer also takes note of the fact that the documents filed by the claimant clinchingly established that she was a pattedar of the disputed land and no material was placed by the State to prove contra. In the circumstances it is held that the impugned orders do not call for interference by this court and they do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. Hence, I see no merits in this revision. 5 The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- G.V. SEETHAPTHY, J. 09.06.2011 Kvsn