THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9590 of 2002 Dated:05.07.2010 Between: Sidda Mallaiah. ...Petitioner And The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o.Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9590 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner filed a claim petition, being SR.No.66/11(a)/79 PGR, before the Settlement Officer for grant of ryotwari patta under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act). He claimed that an extent of Acs.3.64 cents in survey No.3/1, Ac.1.55 cents in survey No.3/3, and Ac.0.22 cents in survey No.4 of S.Nadimpalli Village, Somala Mandal in Chittoor District, originally formed part of Punganuru Zamindari, an inam estate. The Zamindar allegedly granted the patta in 1916 to grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Lingannagari Gangaiah, in respect of the land in Paimash No (P.No).65, that he was raising the crops, that after his death, his father succeeded to the property, and that after father’s death in 1950 the claimant succeeded to the property. In the enquiry he gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Zamindari patta as Ex.B1, besides marking pre and post abolition records in support of the claim. After due enquiry by proceedings dated 19.10.1982 the Settlement Officer, Nellore, granted patta in respect of the land claimed by the petitioner coming to the conclusion that survey Nos.3/1, 3/3 and 4 correlate to P.No.65. The District Collector then preferred revision under Section 5(2) of the Act before the second respondent, namely, Director of Settlements (DoS), who by order dated 12.07.1996 reversed the Settlement Officer duly setting aside his proceedings dated 19.10.1982. The DoS observed as under. …Coming to the merits of the case, the claim is based on old Zamindari patta of the year 1916 coupled with 2 cist receipts and adangal extract for fasli 1352. The zamindari patta and cist receipts contain P.No.65 under an holding of the respondent’s family. The old patta did not contain specific boundaries but mentions only P.No.65. The copy of the Survey Land Register available at page 29 of the lower court file revealed that P.No.65 included in old patta No.4 belonging to L.Chennaiah (Father of the respondent) was correlated to R.S.No.3/2 and a joint ryotwari patta was granted during settlement operations in favour of Lingannagari Gangaiah and Siddulu. It is also discloses the correlation and its classification of the R.S.Nos.claimed by the respondent are as follows. S.No. P.No. Pre abolition Period Extent Classification Extent classification after during Sy.Settl. Settl. Operation 3/1 3 Poramboke 4-64 Adaviporam- boke/Gayalu 3/3 1 -do- 1-55 -do- 4 68 20.00 Ayacut 43-34 -do- Banjar It is thus evident that the respondent has no title over the land in RS.No.3/1, 3/3 and 4 and that the land pertaining to the respondent was accounted for in 3/2 during survey and Settlement Operations. The petitioner then preferred a further revision to the first respondent under Section 7 of the Act who by impugned order dismissed the same observing that no fresh documentary evidence is produced. The petitioner mainly challenges the impugned order on the ground that the orders of the first and second respondents are non- speaking orders and that the petitioner’s family has been in long possession for more than 86 years. The findings recorded are erroneous. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Somala, filed counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that during the settlement operations the petitioner’s grandfather and the petitioner were already granted patta in respect of Acs.2.35 cents in survey No.3/2 which formed part of P.No.65 and that other survey numbers are classified as Adavi poramboke. It is also contended by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the documents produced by the petitioner relate to survey No.3/2 only and that no claim is made in respect of land in survey Nos.3/1, 3/3 and 4 (corresponding to P.Nos.3, 1 and 68 respectively). The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit denying the counter averments. The issue before the original authority, first revisional authority and second revisional authority in a matter of this nature is with regard to P.No.65 and the extent therein. The petitioner duly produced Ex.P1, which is Zamindari patta, and Exs.P2 to P5, which are cist receipts and adangal copies. On considering this evidence the DoS has come to conclusion that zamindari patta in P.No.65 correlates to survey No.3/2. There is no denial that in respect of land comprised in survey No.3/2 the patta was already granted to the petitioner’s grandfather and the petitioner himself. Secondly, there is also no dispute that the lands in survey No.3/1 corresponding to P.No.3, survey No.3/3 corresponding to P.No.1 and survey No.4 corresponding to P.No.68 are classified during settlement operations as Adavi poramboke (gutta). If that be so, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Lands Act, 1908, as well as Section 3 of the Act, no patta can be granted in respect of hill poramboke or forest land. In that view of the matter there cannot be any infirmity in the impugned order. The submission that the first respondent gave a disposal by a non-speaking order is misconceived. This Court has perused the order passed by the first respondent and is convinced that there is a due application of mind. It is well settled that when a higher authority in the hierarchy sitting in appeal or revision confirms the order of the lower authority, elaborate reasons need not be given. The absence of elaborate reasons does not lead to an inference that there is total non- application of mind. This Court is convinced that the plea raised is without any basis. In the result, for the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.07.2010 vs