IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 16781 of 2008 Between: Government of A.P rep. by its District Collector, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Hyderabad 2 The Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements A.P Hyderabad 3 The Joint Collector-Cum-Settlement Officer Chittoor(Formerly Settlement) Officer Nellore 4 Kandriga Rama Reddy Krishna Reddy S/o.Chenga Reddy Daminedu(V) Tirupathi Rural (M) Chittoor District 5 Kandriga Subba Reddy S/o.Chenga Reddy Daminedu(V) Tirupathi Rural (M) Chittoor District ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the settlement oﬃcer passed in S.R No.61/11a/80/CTR dt.22-12-1980 as conﬁrmed by the 2nd respondent in order dt.8-6-2000 and also as conﬁrmed by the 1st respondent in order dt.22-11-2003 as being irregular erroneous unreasonable and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the District Collector, Chittoor stating that the father of respondents 4 and 5 herein has ﬁled a claim petition under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri was the respondent in the said case. The matter was enquired into and the said claim petition was allowed by granting ryotwari patta. Questioning the said orders of the Settlement Oﬃcer, Nellore, the then District Collector ﬁled a revision petition under Section 5(2) of the Act before the 2nd respondent herein, which was dismissed by order dated 8.6.2000. Aggrieved by the same, a further revision was preferred under Section 7(d) of the Act before the 1st respondent. The same was also dismissed by order dated 22.11.2003. Against the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the petitioner. Though orders were passed in the revision petition under Section 7(d) of the Act as long back as on 22.11.2003, the present writ petition is ﬁled in the year 2008 without explaining any reasons for such an inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Coming to the merits of the case also, before the Settlement Oﬃcer, the case of the respondents is that they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands long prior to 1.7.1945 and, therefore, they are entitled for grant of ryotwari patta. Before the Settlement Oﬃcer even though the Tahsildar appeared at the beginning, later he has not appeared and was therefore, set ex parte and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the Settlement Oﬃcer granted ryotwari patta to the father of respondents 4 and 5. Against the orders of the Settlement Oﬃcer, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal below after dealing with the matter elaborately held that the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule lands and proved their case and accordingly dismissed the revision ﬁled by the petitioner. Even in the second revision, the petitioner has not ﬁled any documentary evidence to prove their possession over the schedule lands except stating that the claim of the inamdars is time barred. The Revisional authority after discussing the matter elaborately conﬁrmed the orders passed by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements. Therefore, both the authorities below concurrently found that there is no inﬁrmity or ﬂaw in the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of father of respondents 4 and 5 after conducting a detailed enquiry. Even before this Court, the learned Government Pleader only contended that the land is required by the Government for the purpose of allotting the same to communal purposes and the revisional authority has failed to consider the issues raised before him. Though the inamdars approached the Settlement Oﬃcer with an inordinate delay of six years, the Settlement Oﬃcer erroneously condoned the delay without any explanation. Except this, no other arguments are advanced particularly with reference to the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court either in the aﬃdavit or at the time of hearing of the matter Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.11.8.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Hyderabad 2 The Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements A.P Hyderabad 3 The Joint Collector-Cum-Settlement Officer Chittoor(Formerly Settlement) Officer Nellore 4 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies