HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.10085 of 2008 Date: August 9, 2011 Between: Koneru Appa Rao, S/o.Ramabrahmam, Hindu, aged about 58 years, R/o.Bonalavari Street, Bhadrachalam and others … Petitioners And The Commissioner, Survey, Settlements & Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, and others … Respondents Order: Petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 08.02.2008 passed in Case No.11245 of 1987, by the 3rd respondent-Settlement Officer & Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam. The Settlement Officer, Unit No.II, Bhadrachalam, has taken up suo motu enquiry under Section 9 of the A.P.Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970. At first instance, by order dated 17.11.1987, passed in Case No.11245/87, he has ordered issuance of ryotwari pattas in favour of the petitioners for the lands covered by Schedules A and B. Before the Settlement Officer, there were as many as 20 claimants claiming ryotwari pattas for various extents. While passing order dated 17.11.1987, lands for which ryotwari pattas were ordered to be issued are shown in the Schedules A and B. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer dated 17.11.1987, the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam, has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, who, by order dated 30.12.1991, vide proceedings A.P.No.3/88 and A.P.No.12/88, confirmed the grant of pattas for A schedule lands insofar as claimants 1 to 4 are concerned and with regard to the claim by claimants 5 to 20; by recording a finding that there is dispute with regard to the extents as mentioned in the Adangals and the agreements relied on by the claimants, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the primary authority to conduct de novo enquiry. The petitioners are among the claimants 5 to 20. Though they carried the matter before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and questioned the same before this Court in W.P.No.33914 of 1998, but, they were unsuccessful. In view of the order of the appellate authority, i.e. the Director of Settlements, the present impugned order is passed by the Settlement Officer. I have perused the order under challenge passed by the Settlement Officer. In the said order, the Settlement Officer, instead of focusing on the possession for the relevant period of 8 years for grant of patta, as required under Section 7 of the Regulation II of 1970, merely relying on the findings on the agreement of sales, rejected the claim of the petitioners. A finding is also recorded stating that the petitioners have not filed any documents showing their possession over the respective extents claimed by them for grant of Ryotwari Pattas. In this case, it is to be noticed that once the appellate authority has ordered for de novo enquiry by the Settlement Officer, he ought not to have relied on the findings of the appellate authority on the agreement of sales relied on by the petitioners, while considering their claims for establishing possession for a period of 8 years prior to the enforcement of the Regulation II of 1970. Whether the petitioners are claiming possession pursuant to the agreements or otherwise hardly makes any difference on their claim for grant of Ryotwari Pattas under Regulation II of 1970. As evident from their claim petition and also written arguments filed before the Settlement Officer, it is clear that they have filed some documentary evidence, i.e. Adangals etc., in proof of possession claimed by them. In spite of the same, the Settlement Officer without referring to such documentary evidence has recorded finding that the claimants have not filed any documentary evidence at all. The Settlement Officer himself has referred to the documentary evidence filed before him while passing orders at first instance. Such documentary evidence and the additional documents which are stated to have been filed by the petitioners are not considered by the Settlement Officer while passing the impugned order. As the Settlement Officer has not considered the relevant aspects on the claim of the petitioners for grant of Ryotwari Pattas and the evidence on record is not adverted to while passing the impugned order, I deem it appropriate, it is a fit case for reconsideration of the matter by the Settlement Officer. Although it is pleaded by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents that there is remedy of appeal against the orders of the Settlement Officer, it is to be noticed that this writ petition is of the year 2008 and it has been pending for about last three years. As this Court is of the view that the relevant material is not considered by addressing the issues which are required to be considered for grant of Ryotwari Pattas under Regulation II of 1970, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Government Pleader to drive the petitioners to the appellate forum at this stage. For the foregoing reasons, the order under challenge, i.e. the order dated 08.02.2008 passed in Case No.11245 of 1987, by the 3rd respondent-Settlement Officer & Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam, is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent-Settlement Officer to consider the matter afresh on the claim of the petitioners for grant of Ryotwari Pattas with regard to the lands in question and pass appropriate orders. Needless to observe that that the evidence on record which was considered at first instance in the suo motu proceedings as well as other documents filed along with the claim petition shall be considered. Further, there shall be a direction to the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession as on today with regard to the lands in question, till appropriate final orders are passed by the 3rd respondent-Settlement Officer. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _________________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 9, 2011 MRR