THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1019 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against order dated 18.12.2004 passed in R.P.No.2/84/E1 on the file of the 1st respondent- Commissioner and Director of Settlement, A.P., Hyderabad, whereunder the Ryotwari patta granted under Section 11-A of the A.P. Estates Abolition Act, 1948, in favour of the mother of respondents 4 and 5 on 04.08.1982, was cancelled. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent-Settlement Officer/Joint Collector, Government of A.P., Nellore, vide his proceedings dated 04.08.1982 granted Ryotwari patta under the provisions of A.P. Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (for short ‘Act, 1948’), in respect of the subject lands, to one Pola Venkata Subbamma, who is the mother of the unofficial respondents 4 and 5, and subsequent thereto, they purchased different extents of lands under various sale deeds dated 03.06.1994 and thereafter pattas were granted in their favour on 22.08.1996 (which may not be necessary). It is the case of the petitioners that in fact the subject land was purchased by the said late Pola Venkata Subbamma on 10.12.1963 from one Vallabhaneni Rangapa Naidu under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1701/1963. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have obtained certificate on 01.06.1994 from the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Atmakur, that the subject lands are patta lands and not poramboke lands, as per the revenue records. The grievance of the petitioners is that against the Ryotwari patta granted in favour of their vendor Venkata Subbamma, the 3rd respondent filed a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent in the year 1983, which was not disclosed to them at any time, and the 1st respondent, without hearing to them, by his order dated 18.12.2004, allowed the revision and ryotwari patta granted by the 2nd respondent, in favour of the said Venkata Subbamma was cancelled. Hence, this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that while passing the order dated 04.08.1982, whereby Ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the mother of respondents 4 and 5, the 2nd respondent has not properly considered the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and, therefore, the 3rd respondent filed Revision Petition before the 1st respondent challenging the said order dated 04.08.1982 passed by the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that as the parties did not appear before the 1st respondent on 25.09.2004, the 1st respondent, basing on the records placed before him, passed the impugned order. It is also stated that the Revisional authority found that neither the petitioners nor their vendor could prove their possession prior to Pre-Abolition period as required for grant of ryotwari patta and, as such, the patta granted on 04.08.1982 in favour of the vendor of the petitioners was cancelled. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. According to the petitioners, the subject land was purchased by their vendor Pola Venkata Subbamma on 10.12.1963 under registered sale deed bearing document No.1701/1963. A perusal of the xerox copy of the said document, which is produced before the Court, shows that originally the subject land was the land of Rangapa Naidu in view of the Court orders passed in O.S.No.37 of 1959 on the file of Sub- Court, Nellore. The fact that the Ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the said Venkata Subbamma on 04.08.1982, under Section 11-A of the Act, 1948, is not in dispute. The fact that the subject land was sold by Venkata Subbamma to the petitioners on 03.06.1994, the subsequent pattas granted on 22.08.1996 in favour of the petitioners and the possession of the petitioners over the subject lands till date, are not in dispute. It is unfortunate to notice that in the guise of exercising powers under Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1948, the order passed on 04.08.1982 is sought to be disturbed by the impugned order dated 18.12.2004, after more than two decades. Even otherwise, in the impugned order, except saying that in spite of notices duly served on the respondents, none appeared on the date of hearing, no other merits are recorded. Further, the document dated 10.12.1963 executed by Rangapa Naidu in favour of the said Venkata Subbamma, the Ryotwari patta granted on 04.08.1982 in favour of the said Venkata Subbamma, sale effected by the said Venkata Subbamma in favour of the petitioners on 03.06.1994 and also the subsequent pattas granted on 22.08.1996 in favour of the petitioners would all indicate that the Revision Petition as such would not have been entertained. Merely because a Revision could be entertained suo-motu, the application filed by the 3rd respondent could not have been taken up as a Revision under Section 5(2) of the Act, 1948. Though the Revision Petition was stated to have been filed in the year 1983 itself, it was disposed of in the year 2004 i.e., after more than two decades. In the meanwhile, the rights of the parties are settled, and the settled rights cannot be unsettled, by merely invoking the Revisional jurisdiction vested in the authority, after more than 25 years. On his ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside. However, it is made clear that this may not preclude the authorities from approaching the competent civil court, seeking declaration of title, if any advised. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 02.12.2010 v v