IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22564 of 2000 Between: Thorrikonda Venkaiah. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 5-12-1996 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The case of the petitioner, as reﬂected from the averments contained in his aﬃdavit, is that he was lawfully inducted into possession of an extent of Ac.15.00 cents comprised in R.S.No.454/1 of Katrenipadu village, Nuzvid Taluk, in the year 1943 under a receipt dated 15- 5-1943 evincing payment of Nazarana to the Zamindar of Atkur Estate; and that he had been in possession of the said property before the relevant date viz., 1-7-1945. The petitioner further stated that he made an application before the Settlement Oﬃcer, Eluru, for grant of ryotwari patta for the said land, which was rejected by the Settlement Oﬃcer by his order dated 30-7-1977 on the ground that the land in question was classiﬁed as Forest. The petitioner ﬁled a revision petition before the Director of Survey and Settlements, Hyderabad, which was dismissed by his order dated 5-5-1979. Assailing the said order, the petitioner ﬁled a further revision before respondent No.2, which also met the same fate with its dismissal on 5-12-1996. The petitioner, therefore, ﬁled the present Writ Petition questioning these orders. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner’s counsel requested for adjournment, on the date of hearing before respondent No.2, to enable him to produce copies of orders passed by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement & Land Records in respect of the lands situated in the same survey number, he, without granting any adjournment, reserved orders on 29-10-1996 and dismissed the revision on 5-12-1996. In his order respondent No.2 stated that when the case came up for hearing on 29-10- 1996, counsel for the petitioner was not present despite granting notice. He further stated in the order that though ample time was given to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that pattas were granted in respect of other lands situated in the same survey number, no such orders have been produced by the petitioner. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me a copy of order passed in F.Lc.No.P4/2523/79 and batch, between Eennamadla Madhava Rao Vs. The Tahsildar, Nuzvid, in order to show that respondent No.2 directed grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of other lands comprised in R.S.No.454/1 of Katrenipadu village, Nuzvid taluk. The petitioner has not been able to prove that his counsel was present on 29-10-1996 and I have no reason not to accept the observation of respondent No.2 in the order that the counsel for the petitioner was not present. Having regard to the ground on which the petitioner’s application for grant of ryotwari patta has been rejected, viz., the land is classiﬁed as Forest, and also the fact that the petitioner is able to produce before this Court the purported copy of order of respondent No.2 granting ryotwari patta for certain other lands situated in the same survey number, I feel that in the interest of justice the case should be remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration by permitting the petitioner to ﬁle a copy of the order, which was produced before this Court, and other material, if any, to substantiate his claim for grant of ryotwari patta. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5- 12-1996 is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the revision petition of the petitioner after receiving the material, if any, produced by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 6-08-2008 MNR