HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.12488 & 12544 of 2008 Date : 01.08.2011 Between : Motukuri Ramaiah & others. …..Petitioners And The Government of A.P., rep. by its Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Prakasam District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.12488 & 12544 of 2008 COMMON ORDER : These writ petitions are filed, questioning the order dated 18th February 2008, issued in Proceedings Rc.No.F2-9649-1991, by the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Prakasam District at Ongole. The petitioners herein, claiming ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, got entered their names in 10(1) accounts of Pedavarimadugu village. The said order for implementation in 10(1) accounts of the village, was set aside by impugned order, referring to certain irregularities. During the pendency of the revision, certain third parties, who are residents of the village, questioning the validity of such pattas claimed by the petitioners, represented to the Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, about the genuineness of the pattas claimed by the petitioners. On such representation, suo motu proceedings have been initiated by the Director of Settlements under Section 5(2) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. When the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for impleaded respondents has placed on record a copy of the order, dated 24.03.2009, passed in R.P.No.15/95(B2), by the Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, allowing such revisions, by which, pattas claimed by the petitioners are declared as null and void. The implementation in 10(1) accounts in the name of the petitioners for the subject lands in question, was mainly based on the ryotwari pattas issued by the settlement officer. As much as the very pattas were declared as null and void in the suo motu revision by the Director of Settlements on 24.03.2009, vide his orders in R.P.No.15/95(B2), I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. However, as it is brought to the notice of this Court that as against the orders of the Director of Settlements, revision petitions are filed before the Commissioner of Appeals, and such revisions are pending, I direct that in case, if the petitioners succeed before the Commissioner of Appeals, it is always open for them to approach the authorities to enter their names in 10(1) accounts. But, as the pattas claimed by the petitioners are declared null and void, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Joint Collector. Subject to the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st August 2011 ajr