THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1928 of 2002 July 05, 2010 Between: Ruthala Bangarayya (died per L.Rs) … Petitioner And The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1928 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Rachapalli Village of Makavarapalem Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. He made application to Assistant Settlement Officer for grant of patta in respect of land in Paimaish No.366 (allegedly correlated to R.S.No.76). Patta was allegedly granted. But when the survey was conducted, it appears, part of the land in S.No.76 was classified as Assessed Waste. Aggrieved by such finding, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 5(2) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act). By order dated 20.1.1965, the Director of Settlement (DoS) virtually dismissed the revision observing that against the order of Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 15(1) of the Act, appeal would lie under Section 15(2) but not revision to DoS. Petitioner was given liberty to approach the Assistant Settlement Officer for implementation of patta. It appears that the petitioner did not do so. After lapse of about 37 years, he filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction to respondents to implement the patta allegedly granted on 20.1.1965. The counter affidavit is filed by the Joint Collector (Settlement Officer as of now). It is stated that petitioner’s father, Yerrapatrudu, filed application under Section 12 of the Act before the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer for grant of patta. The claim was in respect of land admeasuring Acs.6.00 in O.S.No.343, Acs.4.00 in O.S.No.356 and Acs.5.00 in O.S.No.358 of Tamaram Village. The Assistant Settlement Officer classified land as Assessed Waste. The petitioner preferred revision before DoS, which was dismissed. It is further stated that the Assistant Settlement Officer already accepted the claim of petitioner giving boundaries with extents and the petitioner cannot claim other extents of lands mentioned hereinabove. As DoS has dropped further proceedings, petitioner cannot have any claim over the land. It is also averred that the land covered by R.S.No.76 of Tamaram Village is not originally carved out from O.S.No.366 and therefore the petitioner cannot have any grievance. The writ petition was filed on 01.2.2002 in respect of claim allegedly made in 1965. It appears that in 1956 itself Additional Assistant Settlement Officer determined the classification of the land in S.No.76 except an extent of Acs.2.00 for which the boundaries were earmarked. Probably for this reason, the petitioner has been agitating the matter for over four decades. The delay and laches would certainly defeat the right of petitioner. He cannot have right over patta land which is classified as Assessed Waste. In such a situation, petitioner’s remedy is by way of appeal under Section 15(2) of the Act. Having failed to avail such remedy, he cannot maintain writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 05, 2010 YS