HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.14612 of 2002 Date: June 8, 2011 Between: Chilukuri Krishnaveni, W/o.late Krishna Rao, aged about 69 years, R/o.Ramachandrapuram, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning order dated 02- 02-2002 passed in proceedings L1/278/97, by the first respondent, i.e. Commissioner of Appeals, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to the extent of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of Ryothwari Patta in respect of the land admeasuring 4.56 hectares covered by Sy.No.55 of Morravanigudem village, Venkatapuram Revenue Mandal, Khammam District. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: The Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam had taken up suo motu enquiry under Section 9 of A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 for grant of pattas. There were three claims before the Settlement Officer. Petitioner herein is the second claimant in the proceedings in case Nos.7033, 6960 and 6963. In this writ petition, we are concerned only with regard to the land covered by Sy.No.55 of Morravanigudem village. The Settlement Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner and also the claim made by the father of respondents 4 and 5 herein in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.55 of the said village. Aggrieved of rejection of the claim for grant of patta, petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements in Appeal No.188/85/G3, whereas the father of respondents 4 and 5 filed appeal in Appeal No.106/86/G3. The first appellate authority, i.e. the Director of Settlements, by a common order, allowed the appeal filed by the father of respondents 4 and 5 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Questioning the said order passed in the aforesaid two appeals, petitioner filed further appeal under Section 9(3) of the Regulation before the Commissioner of Appeals, who, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal in part in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.21, but rejected the claim of the petitioner against Sy.No.55. It is the case of the petitioner that she had purchased the subject land in the auction conducted by the Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam in E.P.No.6 of 1953 in O.S.No.1 of 1950 for a consideration of Rs.3,290/- on 17-03-1958 and also obtained sale certificate and since then she has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same. It is stated that the petitioner qualifies for grant of patta as she was in possession for a period of eight years preceding the enforcement of the Regulation, which came into effect on 01-07-1971. It is her grievance that in spite of the fact that she has questioned the order granting patta, the first appellate authority without considering the appeals in prospective perspective allowed the appeal filed by respondents 4 and 5. On the other hand, it is the claim of the respondents that the father of respondents 4 and 5 has purchased the subject land from the petitioner by sale agreement dated 05-04-1969 and he was inducted into actual and physical possession. It is stated that as much as the late father of respondents 4 and 5 was in possession and as he has filed sufficient evidence, his claim was rightly allowed for grant of patta by the Director of Settlements and there is also no illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. Heard Sri K.Manikyala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Mummaneni Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5. In this case, it is to be noticed that when the claim of the petitioner and the father of respondents 4 and 5 was rejected for grant of Ryotwari Patta in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.55 of Morravanigudem village, admeasuring 4.56 hectares, both filed appeals before the Director of Settlements, who allowed the appeal of the father of respondents 4 and 5 and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. When it is the case of the petitioner that she did not sell the subject land to the father of respondents 4 and 5 and she is the auction purchaser in execution proceedings in E.P.No.6 of 1953 in O.S.No.1 of 1950, the first respondent-Commissioner of Appeals ought to have considered the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner also. Though the petitioner has filed an appeal against the common order passed in Appeal No.188/85/G3 and Appeal No.106/86/G3, consideration has only been confined to the plea of the petitioner, in part, in Sy.No.21 and without considering the validity of the order of the Director of Settlement, the appeal is disposed of by the first respondent-Commissioner of Appeals without taking into account that the petitioner was the auction purchaser and when she denied the sale stated to have been made by her in favour of respondents 4 and 5. The second appellate authority ought to have considered the said aspect also as the appeal was also filed against the order passed in Appeal No.106/86/G3. Further, it is to be noticed that for claiming Ryotwari Patta by non-tribals in scheduled areas, under Regulation 9 of the Regulation, one has to establish possession for a period of eight years prior to enforcement of the Regulations on 01-07-1971. As the petitioner has disputed the agreement of sale relied on by respondents 4 and 5 and as the second appellate authority has not considered the correctness of the order granting patta in favour of respondents 4 and 5 with regard to Sy.No.55, I deem, it is evidently a fit case for reconsideration by the first respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Commissioner of Appeals, refusing to grant patta in favour of the petitioner with regard to land covered by Sy.No.55 of Morravanigudem village, Venkatapuram Revenue Mandal, Khammam District, is set-aside, with a direction to the first resp ondent to consider the matter afresh with regard to the said land on the claim of the petitioner and also the correctness of the order passed by the Director of Settlements granting patta in favour of respondents 4 and 5. The appeals shall be disposed of, by giving notice of hearing to both parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 8, 2011 MRR