IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 20583 of 2002 Between: 1 Masina Chettayya (died) 2 Masina Rama Krishna S/o.Chittayya R/o.Purushothapatnam, East Godavari District. 3 Kaja Mangamma, S/o.Surya Rao, Purushothapatnam, East Godavari District. 4 Nalluru Annapurna W/o.Venkata Rao Inugantivaripet Seethanagaram (M) East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Seethanagaram Mandal, E.G.District. 2 The Settlement Officer, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner of Appeals of The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad .....RESPONDENS 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Ref.No.P2/1099/95, Dt.12/2/2002 before the Commissioner, Appeals, office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant Ryotwari Patta to the petitioners herein in Sy.NO.3/2 and 18/1C of Purushottapatnam Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, E.G.District and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 20583 of 2002 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records in Ref.No.P2/1099/95 dated 12.2.2002 before the Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant Ryotwari patta to the petitioners herein S.No.3/2 and 18/1C of Purushottapatnam village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. According to the petitioners, the lands in S.Nos.3/2, 18/1C, 189/5 and 204/3 admeasuring Ac.0-56.6 cents, Ac.0-16 cents, Ac.0.85 cents and Ac.0.34 cents respectively of Purushottapatnam village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District are their ancestral property. Their father i.e. 1st petitioner (since died) and his brother Masina Lakshmana Swamy partitioned the property, out of which his father and uncle got Ac.2.00 each. The 2nd respondent herein initiated proceedings under Section 11(a) of the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 vide Case No. 11(9) 36/78, E.G. District dated 31.10.1980 in respect of the lands mentioned above. The 2nd respondent by an order 31.10.1980 rejected the claim for grant of patta. Thereafter, the father of the petitioners preferred R.P. No. 193/83-B1 before the 3rd respondent and in the meanwhile he died on 12.12.1989 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal representatives. The 3rd respondent by an order dated 22.4.1995 dismissed the revision. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred revision before the 4th respondent under Section 7(d) of the Act. The 4th respondent by an order dated 12.2.2002 dismissed the revision. According to the petitioners, the order passed by 4th respondent on 12.2.2002 has not been communicated either to them or their counsel. As such, they were not aware of the orders dated 12.2.2002 passed by 4th respondent and they came to know about the same two weeks back (prior to filing of the writ petition) when the 1st respondent tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands pursuant to the orders dated 12.2.2002. They were able to secure a copy of the orders dated 12.2.2002 and approached this Court. The order passed by 4th respondent dated 12.2.2002 is illegal, null and void and opposed to principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the land held by their uncle Lakshmana Swamy was sold away to one Kandru Gannayya under a registered sale deed dated 5.8.1970 and a patta was granted to the said Gannayya in R.P. No. 471/78 dated 16.8.1979. In fact, the case of the petitioners also stands on the same footing and, as they are entitled to patta, they have placed the copies of the orders in R.P. No.471/78 dated 16.8.1979 as well as copy of the registered sale deed dated 5.8.1970 before the respondents, but they have simply rejected the claim of the petitioners holding that they have failed to prove their possession prior to 1.7.1945. No finding was given by the respondents about the orders passed in R.P. No. 471/1978 and as to why their case was not considered on similar lines and all the authorities have failed to consider these facts and mechanically rejected the claim. As such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for non-application of mind. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have filed additional evidence before 4th respondent along with an application to receive the documents, namely, a) sale deed dated 5.8.1970 to show sale of lands by Lakshmana Swamy to Gannayya, b) Partition deed between 1st petitioner and Lakshmana Swamy, c) Ryotwari passbook, d) Orders in R.P. No. 471/78 wherein Kandru Gannayya was given a ryotwari patta, e) Notice under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of S.No.18/1 and f) Orders of granting patta in S.Nos.189/5 and 204/3 in favour of 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners, though the 4th respondent has received those documents, he has not considered those documents as per law. Therefore, the order passed by 2nd respondent as confirmed by 3rd respondent and further confirmed by 4th respondent are arbitrary and illegal. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The petitioners have asserted that all the relevant documents were filed before the 4th respondent for his consideration while the writ petition was pending. In the counter affidavit the respondents have not denied as to filing of an application to receive the additional evidence i.e. the documents as noticed above. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the orders passed by 2nd respondent as confirmed by 3rd and 4th respondents are set aside and the matter is remanded to the primary authority i.e. Settlement Officer, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District (Joint Collector) for re-consideration of the entire matter while taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioners before the 4th respondent. The petitioners shall be allowed to file such documents, if they are not available in the records of the 4th respondent. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded to 2nd respondent, as above. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 14-7-2009. MVB.