THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2392 OF 2000 26th September, 2007. Between: Sanka Krishna Rao. .. Petitioner. And The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2392 OF 2000 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, dated 15.10.1998 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent-Director of Settlement, dated 29.10.1997 and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, are as under: The petitioner herein was granted a ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (AA) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, in respect of Ac.6.76 cents of land situated in Sy.No.367 of Darsi village, Prakasam district vide proceedings of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, dated 26.2.1983. However, the 2nd respondent-Director of Settlement, having taken up a suo motu revisional enquiry, cancelled the ryotwari patta by order dated 29.10.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, which was also dismissed by order dated 15.10.1998. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner states that apart from the cist receipts of pre- abolition period, a certificate issued by the Agricultural Development Bank, Darsi, was also marked as Ex.P.2, which clearly established the fact that the petitioner was not only in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question, but also developed the lands. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Ex.P2 and also other documents marked as Exs.P.1 and P4 the respondents 1 and 2 erred in setting aside the ryotwari patta granted by the Settlement Officer. A perusal of the order of the 2nd respondent shows that the land in question situated in R.S.No.367 was classified as assessed waste in the village accounts. Out of the total extent of Ac.6.76 cents, though the petitioner applied for grant of ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.3.38 cents, the 3rd respondent granted patta to the entire extent of Ac.6.76 cents without examining the concerned records. As a matter of fact, the Additional Settlement Officer had already rejected the patta granted to one Battula China Guruvaiah in the same survey number and for the same extent. Having regard to the said facts borne out of record, the 2nd respondent held that the Settlement Officer ought not to have entertained petitioner’s claim and ought not to have granted patta merely on the basis of the cist receipts, particularly in the absence of any documentary evidence relating to pre-abolition period. The 1st respondent on reappreciation of the evidence produced, confirmed the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent. Having carefully gone through the material on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by respondents 1 and 2. It is to be noted that Ex.P.1 contains two cist receipts dated 19.7.1959 and 1967. Ex.P3 contains five land revenue receipts relating to post-abolition period and Ex.P.4 which is Eksal permission dated 28.6.1974 also relates to post- abolition period. Thus, Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.4 relate to post-abolition period. The only document on which the petitioner relied upon is Ex.P2, which is a certificate issued by the Bank on 16.6.1976 to the effect that the petitioner availed loan of Rs.1,900/-. The respondents 1 and 2 observed that even the purpose for which the loan was granted and the date of sanction and the Survey number of the land proposed to be developed, were not mentioned in Ex.P.2. In the circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 rightly concluded that the said certificate did not substantiate the petitioner’s possession prior to abolition of estates. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 were justified in canceling the patta granted by the Settlement Officer and the impugned orders do not warrant interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (G. ROHINI, J.) 26th September, 2007. Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2392 OF 2000 26th September, 2007. Between: Sanka Krishna Rao. .. Petitioner. And The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents.