THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 15582 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari calling for the records relating to Appeal in P3/1114/2000 to 1118/2000 dated 13.1.2004 on the file of Commissioner of Appeals confirming the orders of the Director of Settlements in R.P. No. 56, 57, 58, 59/97-H1 dated 18.5.2000 and 60/97-H1 dated 19.5.2000 and quash the same; consequently to dismiss the claim of the respondent for grant of patta to the lands in question. Petitioners are the District Collector, Chittor and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi (Urban). It appears, the land in question is situated in Korameenigunta h/o Akkarampalle village of Tirupathi Urban Mandal. Since the land is situated in Inam Estate village, it was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 on 4.3.1963 pursuant to the notification issued under the Act. It is the case of the respondents-claimants that they were inducted into possession of the suit land in the year 1933 by Swami Hathiramji Mutt on ‘Koru’ basis and since then cultivating the land in question and as such they are entitled for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Initially, suo motu enquiry was conducted by the then Settlement Officer, Nellore, who after due enquiry rejected claim of respondents for grant of patta, by order dated 28.2.1969. However, the then Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad by order dated 24.3.1981 set aside the said order and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. It was the case of the respondents-claimants that the ryotwari patta of the property in question was initially granted to Sri Venkatrayulu and Munuswamy in the year 1933 on ‘Koru’ basis by the Inamdar Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi and they were paying rents regularly and in occupation of the same since then. They have filed Exs.P-1 to P-9 to prove their case that the lands are ryoti in nature and they have been in their possession and enjoyment. The Settlement Officer, Chittoor has considered all the documents filed by the claimants and found that the claimants have not proved their possession for the relevant period. In so far as Exs.P1 to P-3 are concerned, it was noticed by the Settlement Officer, that notices were issued for payment of arrears of cash and they do not contain details of land to which they were issued. In so far as Ex.P-4 series of receipts are concerned, it was noticed that the particulars regarding old Paimash Number and new Survey Numbers were not mentioned in the receipts and hence not relied. In so far as Ex.P-5 series of receipts which are issued by the V.M. of Akkarampalle dated 11-5-84, 9-5-77, 14-6-79, 11-6-79, 11-6-79, 27-6-79, 4-9-77 and 25-3-76, filed before the then S.O. Nellore are concerned, it was found that they relate to post abolition period and they do not lend any support for grant of ryotwari patta. Ex.P-6 is rejection of claim of Mutt for issue of ryotwari patta under Section 15(1) of the E.A. Act, 1948. Considering all the exhibits and other evidence adduced by the claimants, the then Settlement Officer, rejected the claim of the respondents-claimants by his order dated 27.9.1997. Challenging the order of the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, respondents- claimants have filed revision before the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. The Director of Settlements, by his order in R.P. No.59/97- H1 dated 19.5.2000, allowed the revision and set aside the orders of the Settlement Officer, Chittoor in S.R. No.10/11(a)/78 dated 27.9.1997. According to the petitioners, the Director of Settlement, A.P. mainly based his decision on the presumption made on the endorsement in Ex.P-12 which is marked in other cases in lower Court i.e. S.R.Nos. 39/11(a)/67, 12/11(a)/78, 15/11(a)/78 and 22/11(a)/78 on the file of District Court, Chittoor returning the application filed by the claimants for return of the documents filed by the District Collector, Chittoor in O.S. No. 29/55 wherein the claimants are not parties to the suit. It was their case that the documents submitted to the District Collector, Chittoor were filed in the said suit and that they were not returned on the ground that they were destroyed after a lapse of time. The Director of Settlements also relied on some observations of the then Asst. Settlement Officer, Nellore in his order dated 31.5.1968 rejecting the application of the Mutt under Section 15(1) for grant of patta under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 198 wherein the Asst. Settlement Officer, Nellore has observed that the schedule lands are ryoti in nature and classified as A.W. Wet and Dry lands in the estate. Further, the Director of Settlements has also considered whether the payment of rent in the shape of produce would amount to payment of rent under the provisions of the Act and the said consideration cannot give any indication whether the respondents- claimants were in occupation of the lands prior to the notified date as required under the provisions of the Act to make them eligible for grant of patta. According to the petitioners, the Director of Settlements while setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer did not consider the relevancy of the documents Exs.P1 to P-9 and has not given finding that the claimants have established their possession and cultivation during the required period prior to 1.7.1945. Challenging the orders of the Director of Settlements, petitioners have filed revision before the Commissioner, Appeals, who has clubbed all the five revisions and passed a common order, dismissing the revision. Therefore, this writ petition. Heard. There is no necessity of going into all the details. This is third round of litigation and no question of law has been raised in this writ petition except saying that the evidence under Exs.P- 1 to P-9 would not reveal correctly as to occupation and possession of respondents-claimants for the purpose of granting Certificate under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act. These are all pure questions of fact and the Director of Settlements has meticulously considered and recorded a finding that the claimants-respondents have established that they are in occupation of the property prior to 1948 through their ancestors and, therefore, they are entitled to a Certificate under Section 11(a) of the E.A. Act and thus the Commissioner, Appeals upheld the orders passed by the Director of Settlements. The relevant portion of the passed by the learned Commissioner of Appeals reads as under: “Heard the arguments, considered them and perused the records. A perusal of the records reveals that originally the Joint Collector-cum- Settlement Officer rejected the claims of the respondents herein, observing that the claimants have not established occupancy right as required under Section 6 of the E.L. Act, 1908. Though the petitioners cultivating the lands and paying the rents to the landholder, no receipt for payment of rent to the landholder prior to 1.7.1945 or prior to the notified date of the Estate has been filed. Against the orders passed by the Joint Collector- cum-Settlement Officer, the respondents herein have filed revisions before the Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements as provided under Section 5(2) of the E.A. Act, 1948. A perusal of the orders passed by the Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements in R.P. No. 59/97 (H1) dated 19.5.2000 and 56/97, 57/97, 58/97 & 60/97 dated 18.5.2000 clearly shows that the Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements had examined all the issues involved in these cases with reference to the provisions of the E.A. Act, 1948 and E.L. Act, 1908 and finally held that the schedule lands have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the respondents herein long prior to 1.7.1945 and that they have acquired occupancy rights over the schedule lands as required under Section 6 of the E.L. Act, 1908 and that the schedule lands are ryoti in nature and set aside the orders passed by the lower Court and allowed the revisions filed by the respondents herein. Even in the second revision filed before this Court the revision petitioner has not filed any other documentary evidence to contradict the findings of the Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements in R.P. No. 59/97 (H1), dated 19.5.2000 and 56/97, 57/97, 58/97 & 60/97 dated 18.5.2000 and thus the revision petitions are dismissed”. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Appeals, does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 27-01-2011. MVB.