THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 27449 of 2007 O R D E R: It appears, the petitioners were granted joint Ryotwari Patta, under the Estates Abolition Act, to an extent of Ac.5-32 cents in R.S. No.161-3, Old Sy.No. 154, situated at Periyavaram Taluq, Nellore District by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer vide proceedings S.R. No. 452/11(a)/60/PN/VGR dated 6.11.1961. According to the petitioners, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property prior to issuance of the Patta and even till date and they had been making several representations for the purpose of mutating their names in the revenue records since then, but no action was taken. Therefore, they filed W.P. No. 23263 of 2007 before this Court and the same was disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the representations purported to have been made by the petitioners. It further appears, a small extent of the land was earmarked for utility of the School located therein, by an order dated 23.9.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had filed a writ petition and the same is pending. While that being so, pursuant to the orders passed in W.P. 23263 of 2007, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar has conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioners for mutating his name in the revenue records mainly on the ground that the Ryotwari Patta issued in their favour seems to be not correct. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the Office of the then Assistant Settlement Officer had been located in Nellore. The entire record related to the claims shall be available in the Office of the present Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector. But, no such record is available in the in the Office of the Settlement Officer and Joint Collector, the 5th respondent in the writ petition. Further, if at all Ryotwari Patta has been granted as claimed by the petitioners, the same would have been implemented in the Fair Adangal being maintained in the Office of the Settlement officer, duly recording the proceedings whereunder patta has been granted, with proper attestation by the authority. This implementation has been done in all cases whenever Settlement Officer has issued Ryotwari Pattas. On verification of the Fair Adangal which is being maintained in the Office of the Settlement officer-cum-Joint Collector, it is revealed that the subject land is the Government land, being classified as “Gayalu”. Further, in the present case, the petitioners were never in possession either before 1945 or after 1945. This aspect is revealed from different factors. The land is under the occupation of the Government High School for the last several years. In fact, orders were also issued handing over of the land to the Z.P. High School in the year 2003. It is further interesting to notice that the very same person who has sworn in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition has also filed counter affidavit in C.C. No. 28 of 2008 in 2008 in WPMP No. 35903 of 2007 in the present writ petition. Paragraph 3 of the said counter says that it is true that the then Additional Settlement Officer in S.R. No. 452/11 (a) PM/VGR had granted Ryotwari Patta to an extent of Ac.5-32 cents in R.S. No. 161/3, Old Sy.No.154, situated at Periavaram village, Venkatagiri Taluq, Nellore District. These are the conflicting statements made by the very same respondent, who filed the counters. Be that as it may, once Ryotwari Patta granted in favour of the petitioners is available, it must be deemed that they were in possession of the property as on the date of issuance of such patta and thereafter. Therefore, the applications filed by the petitioners could not have been rejected on the ground that the petitioners were never in possession as on 1.7.1945 or thereafter and the very Ryotwari Patta granted in favour of the petitioners was doubtful. Unless and until the said Patta is set aside by the competent authority, the respondents cannot deny mutation of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks etc. Therefore, I am of the opinion that on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar for conducting a fresh enquiry for the purpose of mutation of the names of the petitioners taking into consideration the Ryotwari Patta granted in their favour and decide the matter afresh after issuance of notice to all the parties concerned. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained as to the entries in the revenue records. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and remanded. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the respondents-authorities from conducting fresh enquiry as to the validity of the Ryotwari Patta issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 1961, if necessary, in accordance with law. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 16-9-2009. MVB.