IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No: 22907 of 2000 Between: Pepakayala Suryanarayana S/o. Satyam R./o.Jalluru Village, Addatheegala Mandalam, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Raod, Hyderabda. 2 The District Collector Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District. .....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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the entire records in L3/38/95, dt.14.9.2000 (Communicated through Proceeding in L3/38/95, dt.25.10.2000 passed by the 1st Respondent herein and quash the same and pass such other just and appropriate orders in the matter. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No: 22907 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to proceedings no.L3/38/95 dated 14.09.2000 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. It appears the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of land to an extent of 16.62 hectares in Sy.Nos.44, 45, 51 and 52 under lease no.18. It also appears that under Muttas (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 i.e. Andhra Pradesh Regulations, 2/1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation 2/69’) a notification was issued on 26.12.1970. The Settlement Officer passed orders granting ryotwari patta for survey no.44 and disallowed claim for survey nos.45, 51 and 52 by an order dated 29.10.1974. Aggrieved thereby, A.P.No.13/75 was filed before the competent authority and the said appeal was allowed on 16.08.1987 and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer for fresh consideration. On fresh consideration, the Settlement Officer, allowed the claim of the petitioner for survey nos.45, 51 and 52 also by an order dated 05.04.1976. While so, Sri Madakam Jogi Dora filed LTRP Case No.172/75 claiming that he is a tribal and the lands were in possession of the petitioner herein in contravention of Section 3(1) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas and Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, but the said case was dismissed by the Special Assistant Agent, Peddapuram, by orders dated 23.10.1976. On a complaint filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, for restoration of the petition scheduled lands to the Government, the Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, has suo motu taken up enquiry in LTRP No.136/79 who, by orders dated 09.01.1986, rejected the case filed by Sri Madakam Jogi Dora against the petitioner herein holding that in view of the orders passed in LTRP No.172/75 dated 23.10.1976 there was no prohibition to transfer under the regulation and that the LTRP No.136/79 is hit by doctrine of res judicata. In a similar case in LTRP No.134/79 filed before the Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, against the petitioner herein, he filed WP No.17687 of 1987 seeking a direction to the Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, not to proceed with the enquiry in LTRP No.134/79. This Court by orders in WP No.17687 of 1987 dated 07.02.1989 directed the Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, not to proceed with the enquiry in LTRP No.134/79 holding that where the pattas have been granted under the Regulation 2/69, their possession becomes lawful and grant of ryotwari patta does not become void by operation of Section 3 of Regulation 1/59 and that the impugned proceedings would be redundant in view of the grant of pattas under Section 8 of Regulation 2/69. The 3rd respondent preferred an appeal in A.P.No.12/92 and the same was allowed on 17.11.1994. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed WP No.21844 of 1994 and the same was disposed of by order dated 15.12.1994 with a direction to the petitioner herein to file a revision before the Government within 45 days and till then not to evict the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision before the Government. However, the same was dismissed on 14.09.2000. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from arguing that the matter attained finality in the earlier LTRP Cases, contended that the appeal filed after more than 15 years against the original order dated 05.04.1976 was taken up by the appellate authority and was allowed setting aside the order conferring ryotwari patta to an extent of 11.72 hectares of land in S.Nos.45, 51 and 52 of Jalluru village of Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, in favour of the petitioner. He further contended that absolutely there were no merits in allowing the appeal as, firstly, there was a delay of more than 15 years, and, secondly, the matter was settled earlier in the LTRP cases between the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Addateegala, and the petitioner herein and Sri Madakam Jogi Dora. He also contended that the appeal, order of which is impugned, was filed by the 3rd respondent herein suo motu and such an appeal would not have been taken up by the appellate authority and condoned the delay of more than 15 years. Whereas the learned counsel for respondent stated that the matter relates to the rights of tribals and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in condoning the delay of more than 15 years by the appellate authority and the appellate authority rightly allowed the appeal. I have given earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. As early as in 1975, under the agricultural land ceiling proceedings a declaration under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, showing the possession under the said Act was made and the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapuram, passed an order dated 30.10.1976 showing the lands in possession of the petitioner by 01.01.1975 itself. The same is also seen from the orders of the Special Deputy Tahsildar Land Reforms, Addateegala, and further the Land Reforms Tribunal on 16.01.1976 paid compensation of Rs.1,321/- to the petitioner under Form 10 of the Ceiling Act. The petitioner also obtained loan from the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada, in 1980 and he was in possession of the scheduled lands. Therefore, it cannot be said that conferring of ryotwari patta under the Regulation 2/69 in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. This attained finality immediately after expiry of 60 days from the date of passing of the order dated 05.04.1976. But it is not known on what basis the 3rd respondent had preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Regulation 2/69 after more than 15 years. No public interest as such was considered either by the appellate authority or by the original authority. Merely making a statement that the delay was condoned in the public interest cannot be countenanced, unless some fraud had taken place in the original proceedings issued by the Settlement Officer dated 05.04.1976 conferring ryotwari patta on the petitioner. Apart from that, the matter had attained finality in the LTRP proceeding nos.134/79 and 172/75. When once the matter had attained finality, question of preferring an appeal with a delay of more than 15 years under the guise of public interest could not have been entertained. The learned counsel for petitioner, in this regard, has rightly relied upon a judgment of this Court in WP No.10318 of 2002 dated 16.10.2008 wherein an appeal was preferred after more than 25 years was held to be improper. In this case, absolutely there is no public interest involved. On the other hand, the earlier decisions of the competent authority under the LTRP as well as other proceedings, since attained finality, come in the way of respondents in allowing the appeal by the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent. Even on the question of merits the fact remains that the LTRP cases filed against the petitioner were dismissed and the appeals preferred thereupon were also dismissed. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent are held arbitrary and illegal and are, therefore, set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ------------------------ C.V.RAMULU, J 8th June 2009 CVRK