IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 15672 of 1997 Between: 1 Merla Satyanarayana Chowdary, S/o. Jagannayakulu, Hindu, R/o. Velangi, Karapa Mandal, E.G.Dist. 2 Merla Raghunatha Rao, S/o. Jagannayakulu, Hindu, R/o. Velangi, Karapa Mandal, E.G.Dist. 3 Merla Jagath Prasad, S/o. Satyanarayana Chowdary, Hindu, R/o. Velangi, Karapa Mandal, E.G.Dist. 4 Merla Krishna Prasad, S/o. Satyanarayana Chowdary, Hindu, R/o. Velangi, Karapa Mandal, E.G.Dist. 5 Merla Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Satyanarayana Chowdary, Hindu, R/o. Velangi, Karapa Mandal, E.G.Dist. 6 Merla Bagwan Vasudeva Prasad, S/o. Satyanarayana Chowdary, Hindu, R/o. Velangi, Karapa Mandal, E.G.Dist. 7 Smt. M.Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Srinivas, R/o. Velangi, Karapa Mandal, E.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankavaram, East Godavari District. 2 Special Officer-Cum-Joint Collector, East Godavari Dist., Kakinada. 3 Director of Survey , Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad. 4 Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to th eorders dated 27-5-97 in Case Nos. P2/331/95 and P2/332/95 on the file of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and land Records Confirming the orders dated 7-10-1994 in R.P. Nos. 44 and 68 of 1981 on the file of the Director of Settlements arising out of the order dated 16-1-1981 in R.P. No. 454/1963 on the file of the settlement officer, Visakhapatnam and quash the same Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 15672 OF 1997 ORDER: 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to question the orders of 4th respondent dated 27.5.1997 in Case Nos. P2/331/95 and P2/332/95, confirming the orders of 3rd respondent dated 7.10.1994 in R.P.Nos. 44 and 68 of 1981, arising out of order dated 1.1.1981 in RP No. 454 of 1963 passed by Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”). 2. This case has a chequered history and it has earlier come before this Court in WP No. 655 of 1968 which was decided by Hon’ble Sri Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy (His Lordship then was) under his judgment dated 10.10.1969. The dispute relates to the extent of land, the petitioners are entitled to grant of patta under Section 11 of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are legal heirs of Meerla Jagannayakulu. The land admeasuring Ac.34-00 in S.No. 73, Ac.9-54 cents in S.No. 73 and Ac.34-00, total admeasuring Ac.77-56 cents, bearing patta No.11 was auctioned by revenue authorities when third parties who were in possession were declared defaulters in payment of land revenue. Whereupon Meerla Jagannayakulu purchased the aforesaid extents of land under three different registered sale deeds dated 1.6.1941, 19.5.1941 and 8.4.1941 respectively. After abolition of estates and during settlement operations, the petitioners were granted pattas in respect of land admeasuring Ac.25-10 cents in RS No. 55, Ac.2-08 cents in RS No. 57, 0-58 cents in RS No. 56 and 0- 59 cents in RS No. 58, total admeasuring Ac.51-39 cents and they were denied pattas in respect of Ac.26-40 cents in RS No. 274, 0-50 cents in RS No. 59, 0-66 cents in RS No. 60 and 0-84 cents in RS No. 61, total admeasuring Ac.26-40 cents. Therefore, the petitioners applied for grant of patta in respect of the said extent which was rejected by the Settlement Officer under order dated 5.4.1965. Against which, the petitioners preferred a revision vide R.P.No. 467 of 1965 before 3rd respondent who dismissed the revision on 14.4.1965 and a further revision was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 1.8.1967. Questioning the aforesaid orders, the petitioners preferred a writ petition being WP No. 655 of 1968 which was allowed on 10.10.1969 and all the three orders of the aforesaid authorities were quashed and the matter was remitted to 3rd respondent for reconsideration with reference to all documents and permitted the parties to adduce further evidence, if any. On reconsideration, the 3rd respondent felt it appropriate to remit the matter to Settlement Officer. Accordingly the matter was remitted to Settlement Officer and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Settlement Officer granted patta in respect of Ac.26-40 cents in RS No. 274. He also observed that the petitioners were also entitled to patta in respect of Ac.2-00 in S.Nos. 59, 60 and 61, but as road was formed covering the said land, they were entitled to benefits of acquisition. Aggrieved by the grant of patta in respect of Ac.26-40 cents in favour of the petitioners, 1st respondent filed a revision being RP No. 44 of 1981 before 3rd respondent. The petitioners also filed a revision being RP No. 68 of 1981 against the order of Settlement Officer for disallowing their claim for patta in respect of Ac.15-40 cents. It was the contention of the petitioners before 3rd respondent that they are entitled to another 12 acres of land in RS No. 274, as their claim is, in fact, for 40 acres and not for Ac.26- 40 cents in the said survey number. The petitioners also contended that they are entitled to patta with respect to 2 acres of land which was later made into road and as on the relevant date of grant of patta, there was no such road. Both the revisions were disposed of by separate orders on 7.10.1994. The revision preferred by 1st respondent was allowed and the order of Settlement Officer was set aside, whereas the revision filed by the petitioners was disallowed rejecting their claim for issuance of patta in respect of 12 acres as well as 2 acres of land. The petitioners preferred a revisions before 4th respondent against the orders of 3rd respondent in RP Nos. 44 and 68 of 1981, dated 7.10.1994. The said revisions were dismissed by the 4th respondent and questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The basic issues which fell for consideration before the respondents 3 and 4, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, have been totally misconceived by the said authorities. The learned counsel contends that the directions of this Court in WP No. 655 of 1968 were rightly followed by the Settlement Officer, but they have neither been followed nor appreciated by the respondents 3 and 4. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the assumption of the 4th respondent that the land is not a Ryoti land and further assumption that the judgment and the documents which were considered by the civil court in OS No. 80 of 1945 need not be considered is also erroneous. The learned counsel has, therefore, made a serious attempt to dislodge the findings of 4th respondent with reference to definition of ‘cultivable land’ as used in the Estate Lands Act as applicable to the present Act and that the said expression was completely misconstrued by the 4th respondent. The learned counsel has also laid great stress on the report of Commissioner, on the basis of which OS No. 80 of 1945 was decided and he has also relied upon the inspection report of Settlement Tahasildar which was appreciated and discussed by the Settlement Officer. The learned counsel would, therefore, submit that contrary to the evidence available on record, the respondents 3 and 4 ignored the said documents and they have also committed error in construing as to whether the land in question is Ryoti land or not. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the material available on record. This Court had earlier considered the probative value of the report of commissioner as well as inspection report of Settlement Tahasildar. In fact, this Court has specifically recorded that the inspection report clearly supports the petitioners’ case. Similarly the report of commissioner, on the basis of which OS No. 80 of 1945 was decided and its relevancy for considering the present case of the petitioners was also appreciated by this Court and on the ground of non- appreciation of the said two documents, the earlier orders of the Settlement Officer as well as revisional authorities were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The petitioners were allowed to lead further evidence, if any. The relevancy of the said two documents for considering the case of the petitioners, therefore, stands adjudicated in favour of the petitioners and it is not open for the respondents 3 and 4 to ignore the said findings and the said documents and proceed to determine the case of the petitioners. The error in the impugned orders to that extent, is evident. In fact, the 3rd respondent proceeded to reject the commissioner’s evidence on the ground that the suit in OS No. 80 of 1945 was among private parties and the Government was not a party thereto and that the report and the plan prepared by the commissioner in the said suit were not relevant and there is no need to take the commissioner’s report into consideration. The aforesaid findings of the 3rd respondent in his order dated 7.10.1994 in RP No.44 of 1981 are clearly opposed to the findings given by this court in the earlier writ petition referred to above. Similarly though the 4th respondent noticed that the judgments in the suit, first appeal and second appeal arising out of the same issue, were relied upon by the petitioners, but he has not considered the same on the same ground that the Government was not a party and it is a litigation between private parties. Both the said authorities have failed to take into consideration that the relevancy of the said documents was upheld by this Court in the earlier writ petition referred to above. Further the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute after the abolition of estates was adjudicated by the civil court, basing upon the commissioner’s report. Thus the land which was in occupation of the petitioners as on the date of abolition of estates and their consequential entitlement for grant of patta was covered by the aforesaid documents and irrespective of the Government being a party thereto or not, the said documents were relevant and ought to have been taken into consideration. The Settlement Officer has rightly relied upon the said documents, but the respondents 3 and 4 have rejected the said documents and excluded them from consideration, which is clearly an error, which warrants correction under the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The 4th respondent has also committed an error that a pasture land is non-Ryoti land while considering the other contentions. As per the definition given under Section 3 (16) of the Estate Lands Act, the ‘Ryoti land’ means ‘cultivable land’. Even the inspection report, which was considered by the Settlement Officer and which was also considered relevant by this Court in the earlier writ petition referred to above, confirms the fact that the said land was used as pasture land and as such it cannot be said that it is a non- Ryoti land. The conclusions of 4th respondent confirming the aforesaid conclusions of 3rd respondent are, therefore, not only opposed to the order of this Court in the earlier writ petition, but also against the definition of Ryoti land as contemplated under the Estate Lands Act which is applicable to the present proceedings. However, since these questions are required to be determined by the authorities under the Act, I deem it appropriate to remit the matters to 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are quashed and the revision petitions being RP No. 44 and 68 of 1981 are remitted to 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. After issuing notice and hearing the parties, the 3rd respondent shall decide the revisions in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While deciding the revisions, he shall keep in mind the judgment of this Court in WP No. 655 of 1968, dated 10.10.1969 and also the materials on record. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 6.2.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankavaram, East Godavari District. 2 Special Officer-Cum-Joint Collector, East Godavari Dist., Kakinada. 3 Director of Survey , Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad. 4 Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad. 5. CC to GP for Revenue, 6. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA}