IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2118 OF 2005 Between: Kalidas Jagannadam. … Petitioner And Chief Commissioner of land Administration and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2118 OF 2005 ORDER: - This writ petition is directed against an order passed in proceedings No.P2/1341/2000, dated 29.01.2003, on the file of The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration-respondent No.1. Under the impugned order, dated 29.01.2003, the revision filed by the petitioner, before the Commissioner, Appeals (Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad being aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements-respondent No.2 in his file No.R.P.No.222/86-A2, dated 10.08.2000, while confirming the order passed by the Primary Authority-respondent No.3, dated 30.06.1996, rejecting to grant patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for brevity, “the Act”), was dismissed. According to the petitioner, he filed a petition before the Settlement Officer, Nellore-respondent No.3 under Section 11(a) of the Act, seeking patta for an extent of Ac.7-05 cents in survey Nos.54 and 157/2 of Thumadu village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District. Survey Nos.54 and 157/2 correlates to pimashi No.145. It is the claim of the petitioner, that his father got Ac.1-30 cents under a registered exchange deed, dated 27.07.1935, from one Venkata Adi Reddy and his adopted father also obtained an extent of Ac.2-57 cents from his brother Kalidas Venugopal under an agreement of sale, dated 15.06.1953. His father also purchased an extent of Ac.3-00 cents of land under registered sale deed dated 22.12.1986. It is his case that the father of the petitioner, paternal uncle and the vendor under the sale deed were in continuous possession of lands in question for a quiet long time. Since it is estate inam lands, the petitioner, who is in continuous possession is entitled for a patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. However, the application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.3 herein was rejected on 30.06.1996 on the ground that the land in question is not identifiable since no survey numbers are mentioned in the title documents produced by the petitioner and that there is no proof to show that the lands claimed by the petitioner correlates to R.S.Nos.54 and 157/2 of Thumadu village. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 also dismissed the revision confirming the orders passed by respondent No.3 by his order, dated 10.08.2000, and further revision filed before respondent No.1 was also dismissed on 29.01.2003. According to the petitioner, neither the documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P5 were verified nor the village fair adangal as available with the revenue department was verified and they were not taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the matter either by respondent No.3 or by respondent Nos.1 and 2. While examining Exs.P1 to P5, it is stated by the authorities that the pre-abolition records are in the name of others and the petitioner has not taken pains to explain how those receipts relate to the schedule lands. The petitioner has failed to establish his title over the schedule land since the schedule land has been classified as village site poramboke and vagu poramnoke, which are meant for public purpose. Thus from the above it is clear that the respondents have not considered the matter in right perspective. May be the lands in the pre- abolition records were mentioned in some others name. What the respondents are supposed to enquire is as to whether the petitioner or his predecessors-in-title were in possession of the property and whether there is any co-relation between the Pimashi 145 and R.S.Nos.54 and 157/2 of Thumada village, Jarugumalli Mandal. The respondents have to examine in detail the documents Exs.P1 to P5 and trace out the title of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Further, there is some force in the contention of the petitioner that the lands in question are ryotwari lands. This is reflected even in the counter filed before this court to say that a part of the land in R.S.Nos.54 and 157/2 of Tumadu village, Jarugumallu Mandal was shown as Ryotwari land and pattas were in fact granted to some persons. The petitioner has in fact claimed an exchange of the land of Ac.1-30 cents under a deed, dated 27.03.1935, with one Venkata Adi Reddy. This is pre-abolition document. Further, the agreement of sale entered into by the father of the petitioner and his paternal uncle dated 15.06.1953 also is very close to the abolition period. Therefore, I am of the opinion that unless and until all these documents are examined in detail as to their nature and the true vendor therein, who was in possession of the property prior to the abolition of the estates, and also as to whether the pimashi No.145 co-relates to survey Nos.54 and 157/2 of Tumadu village, a correct decision cannot be arrived at. Under those circumstances, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 on 30.06.1996 as confirmed by the revisional authority on 10.08.2000 and further confirmed by the revsional authority on 29.01.2003 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence both oral and documentary apart from the evidence already available on record and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such time, stats quo as on today shall be maintained. The Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J December 10, 2010 lmv