IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4239 of 2002 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. … Petitioner AND Smt. Pasarakonda Suryakantham & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri K. Subrahmanyam This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4239 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 05.03.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, respondent No.4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the petitioner and Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The dispute pertains to an extent of Ac.11.50 cents in Sy.No.148/1 of Pydivada Agraharam Village. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ﬁled an application before the Settlement Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act’). The said application was dismissed by the Settlement Oﬃcer by order dated 22.04.1985. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.1 to 3 carried the matter in revision before the Director of Settlement, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who by his order dated 04.05.1996 dismissed the same. The said order was questioned in a further revision ﬁled by respondent Nos.1 to 3 before respondent No.4 and the said revision petition was allowed by his order, which is impugned in this writ petition. A perusal of the order passed by the Settlement Oﬃcer shows that after undertaking a detailed discussion regarding the evidence produced by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to show that as on the notiﬁed date, namely, 01.07.1945 they and their ancestors were in possession of the property up to the date of taking over of the Estate by the Government and held that except the oral evidence let in by the petitioners, there is no other evidence to show their continuous possession of the land between 01.07.1945 and up to the date of taking possession of the Estate by the Government. The Settlement Oﬃcer also observed that the claimants have not chosen to ﬁle land revenue records relating to the pre-abolition period and that they failed to prove that they and their ancestors are having Kudivaram right or occupancy rights during the pre-abolition period except the extract of the Taylor’s report containing the names of their fore-fathers. The Director of Settlements affirmed the said findings. In his order, respondent No.4 held that since the Taylor’s report referred to the names of the ancestors of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and they have filed Adangal for Fasli 1388 (1988 AD), a presumption has to be drawn about their continuous possession. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ambika Prasad Thakur vs. Ram Ekbal Rai[1]. Respondent No.4 also observed that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer neither issued certiﬁed copies of pre- abolition records, as requested by the revision petitioners, nor produced those records at least before him. Under the provisions of the Act, a person is entitled to ryotwari patta if he is able to show that the property was in his possession or his ancestors as on 01.07.1945 till the same was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act. It is an undeniable fact that there was no direct evidence produced by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to show that during that relevant period they or their ancestors were in possession. However, as noted above, on the basis of the Taylor’s report, which was prepared as far back as the year 1865 and also the post-abolition revenue record, which pertains to the year 1988, respondent No.4 has drawn a presumption about the continuous occupation of the land by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and their ancestors. In my considered opinion, respondent No.4 has committed an error in drawing such a presumption. The judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above was of no avail to respondent Nos.1 to 3 because the time gap was too long between 1865 and 1945 and also between 1945 and 1988 to presume their continuous possession during these two periods. Unless the record reveals their possession as on 01.07.1945, the petitioners are not entitled to ryotwari pattas. Respondent No.4, being a superior oﬃcer both administratively and hierarchically, ought to have ensured production of record by the petitioner, instead of drawing inferences and surmises. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order of respondent No.4, impugned in this writ petition, is quashed and the matter is remitted to him for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall produce the record relevant for the purpose of considering the application of respondent Nos.1 to 3 for grant of ryotwari patta. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to produce the record, respondent No.4 shall be free to draw presumption of possession in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Till the disposal of the revision by respondent No.4, status quo as on today shall be maintained with regard to possession. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.10.2008 ES [1] AIR 1966 SC 605