THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4960 OF 2003 Dated:04.03.2011 Between: Batta Sanyasi .. Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Venkatapuram Mandal, Venkatapuram, Khammam District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4960 OF 2003 ORDER: The writ petition is filed assailing the order of the third respondent declining to entertain the revision under Section 9(3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Rytwari Settlement) Regulations 1970 (Regulation 2 of 1970) (hereafter called as the Regulation). The revision was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.12.1983 of the second respondent, who refused to grant rytwari patta to the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in Survey No.50/2 of Waddegudem Village of Venkatapuram Mandal in Khammam District. The brief fact of the matter to the extent relevant for disposal of the writ petition is as follows. The subject land was allegedly under the cultivation of China Mutyalu, father of the petitioner, for over five decades. He had dug a kunta (tank) for storage of water. The Settlement Officer initiated suo motu enquiry under Section 9(1) of the Regulation for grant of rytwari patta. The petitioner’s mother deposed to the effect that land had been under cultivation by her husband since long. The Settlement Officer, however, declined to grant patta on the ground that the land is a private kunta and, therefore, patta cannot be granted. It is the case of the petitioner that though the order has been passed on 30.12.1983, it was not communicated to him or his mother. He applied for a certified copy of the order of the Settlement Officer, which was furnished to him on 22.07.1997. Thereafter, he filed a revision under Section 9(3) of the Regulation which was rejected by the third respondent. The petitioner would contend that an order, which is not communicated, is no order in the eye of law; a person aggrieved has a right of appeal to the Director of Settlement, within 60 days from the date of communication of the order and that as the order of the Settlement Officer is not communicated, the petitioner’s revision could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. A counter affidavit is filed only in July 2010, even though writ petition was admitted in 2003. It is admitted that the petitioner’s mother made a claim for rytwari patta, which was rejected on 30.12.1983 and that in 2005-2006, the petitioner raised paddy crop over an extent of 60 cents keeping the remaining land fallow. While asserting that there is a private kunta in the land, an allegation is made that the order of the Settlement Officer was dispatched and that the appeal was not filed within 60 days after the order dated 30.12.1983 of the Settlement Officer, which was dispatched on 11.04.1984. Section 9(3) of the Regulation provides for an appeal to the Director against the decision of the Settlement Officer within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. Therefore, the communication of an order, either by the Settlement Officer or by the Director, is mandatory requirement. The petitioner alleges that the copy of the order was not communicated to him or to his mother. Dealing with this aspect, the Settlement Officer observed in the impugned order as follows. Further it is evident from the lower Court case file that the orders passed by the S.O., Bhadrachalam dt.30.12.1983 were dispatched on 11.4.1984 to all the parties concerned as required under Rule (6) of the Rules framed under Regulation 2/70 which read as follows: “A copy of the decision, in all, of the Settlement Officer shall be communicated to the parties or their Counsel”. Thus the S.O., Bhadrachalam has satisfied the requirement of the Rule (6) framed under Reg.2/70. It is not the case of the petitioner that the lower Court passed orders behind her back without giving adequate opportunity. Admittedly as could be seen from the lower Court case filed at page No.3 that notice of hearing was in fact served on the petitioner which was also acknowledged. Hence, the petitioner was fully aware of the lower Court. Admittedly, the appellant’s mother was very much in the village and claiming to be cultivating the land for the past (50) years and hence the appellant cannot come before this Court with the plea after (13) years that the final orders were not communicated. A bare perusal of the above order would show that the notice of hearing issued to the petitioner’s mother was acknowledged. But, though it is observed that the order of the Settlement Officer dated 30.12.1983 was dispatched, there is no such finding that that was acknowledged either by petitioner or by his mother. Therefore, this Court directed for production of the file. As the file was not produced, this Court issued directions to the Settlement Officer to appear before this Court. The Settlement Officer appeared before this Court on 11.02.2011. On instructions from him, the Government Pleader for Revenue informed that the file has not been traced out and efforts are being made to do so. Today, the file has been produced. Though there is a stamp on the office copy of the proceedings of the Settlement Officer dated 30.12.1983 that the same has been dispatched, there is no acknowledgment in the file. This would certainly belie the counter averment and the case of the respondents that the order of the Settlement Officer was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner indisputably obtained a certified copy on 22.07.1997, and then filed the revision before the third respondent. There is no dispute that it is within limitation prescribed under Section 9(3) of the Regulation. On this ground, the petitioner must succeed and at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the third respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to him with a direction to issue notice of hearing of the case on merits to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders duly communicating a copy of the order to him. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 04.03.2011 KH