IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9181 of 2009 Between: Kaseti Nagabhushanam S/o.Chinna Ramappa Residing at Anantapur ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Anantapur 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Subhash Road, Anantapur .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records of the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Anantapur (District Judge , Anantapur) in EAS.No.03/2001 confirming the order of the first respondent Settlement officer,Anantapur,dated 28.10.2000 passed in SR.No.8/15(1)/1988 and issue a writ of certiorari to qaush the order dated 16.4.2008 passed by the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Anantapur (Dsitrict Judge , Anantapur) in EAS.No.03/2001 and the order of the first respondent dated 28.10.2000 passed in SR.No.8/15(1)/1988 by holding the said proceedings as illegal, and without jurisdiction and contrary to records and consequentially direct the respondents to grant patta to the petitioner for the land in Survey No.57/14 and 57/15 admeasuring 0.15 cents,Papampeta village,Anantapur Mandal and District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.9181 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 16-04-2008 in E.A.S.No.3 of 2001, passed by the Estate Abolition Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapur. The appeal was directed against the order, dated 28-10-2000, under Sections 15 and 67 of the A.P. Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’), through which, the Settlement Officer, Anantapur, refused to grant patta in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner states that the land was purchased by him, through a sale deed, dated 13-04-1970 and his vendor, in-turn, purchased the land from the original owner, through document, dated 22-01-1958. It is stated that the application filed by the petitioner, under Section 15 of the Act, was rejected on the sole ground that the patta in respect of that land was granted in favour of the person, original owner, by name, Sri Gollapalli Lakshmi Narasaiah, who admittedly sold the land in 1958. It is also pleaded that Lakshmi Narasaiah filed an affidavit expressing no objection for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner. The Settlement Officer, however, has taken the view that once patta was granted in favour of the erstwhile owner, another patta cannot be granted in favour of a different person as regards the same land. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the same. Heard Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is a matter of record that in respect of Ac.0.15 cents of land in Sy.Nos.57/14 and 15 of Papampetta village, Anantapur Mandal and District, the patta, under Section 15 of the Act, was issued in favour of Lakshmi Narasaiah, vide orders, dated 20-11-1969. Obviously, not being aware of this development, the petitioner submitted the application for grant of patta in his favour. At least, when he came to know about the patta granted in favour of the erstwhile owner, the petitioner ought to have taken steps for setting at naught, the patta, granted in favour of the person, who ceased to be the owner. The contention of the petitioner is that; since the original pattadar himself is said to have filed an affidavit, expressing no objection, his application cannot be rejected. Though the erstwhile owner i.e. Lakshmi Narasaiah has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection for the claim of the petitioner, the Settlement Officer and the Appellate Authority are handicapped from granting patta in favour of the petitioner, once there existed a patta in respect of the same land. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client would take steps to challenge the patta granted in 1969. An Application has to be for condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority. In case, the person holding the patta for the land does not have any objection, there should not be much of difficulty for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and the Appellate Tribunal can proceed to adjudicate the matter. For this purpose, the petitioner has to withdraw the application that was filed before the 1st respondent as well as the appeal preferred before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client withdraws the application as well as the appeal and that the same may be recorded. The same is recorded and as a result, the orders passed by the Settlement Officer as well as the Tribunal in the appeal, on the application as well as the appeal, are set aside. It shall be open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the order, dated 20-11-1969, with an application to condone the delay. As and when it is filed, the matter shall be dealt with, on its own merits. The delay would, no doubt, be enormous, but the explanation of the petitioner that he has been pursuing the matter all through and the consent, if any, on the part of the contesting respondents for condonation of delay, shall be taken into account by the Tribunal. Depending upon the outcome of the application for condonation delay, the petitioner can make efforts for grant of patta in his favour. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ 30th April 2009 KVR