IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21719 of 2000 Between: 1 Smt G Daisy W/o late G Durga Prasad R/o Nallabelli Village, Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Smt G Juliet Devanandini W/o R Kishore R/o Nallabelli Village, Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District. 3 G Brinda Barani D/o late G Durga Prasad R/o Nallabelli Village, Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District. 4 G Ajit Prasad D/o late G Durga Prasad R/o Nallabelli Village, Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner Appeals/Chief Commissioner of Land Administrative, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Settlements Hyderabad. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Smt Poosam Kanakaratnamma W/o late Prasad Rao R/o Chinnanallabelli Village, Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Poosam Prasad S/o Laxmaiah R/o Chinanallabelli Village, Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: MR. K.MANIKYALA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside orders, dated 30.01.1997 and 28.08.2000 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 approached respondent No.3 under the Andhra Pradesh Land Transfer Regulation 2 of 1970 (for short ‘Regulation 2 of 1970’) for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.30 cents in R.S.No.5 of Chinanallabelli Village, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam District. By order, dated 23.12.1981, the Settlement Officer, Venkatapuram - II granted ryotwari patta in his favour. Questioning the said order, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed appeal, which was registered as A.P.No.95 of 1984 (G1), under Section 9(3) of Regulation 2 of 1970. The said appeal was disposed of by respondent No.2 by his order, dated 30.01.1997 wherein he held that the scheduled lands are situated in an ex-estate village; that the appellants (respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein) were not parties before the Settlement Officer, Venkatapuram - II, who granted ryotwari patta only on the basis of oral evidence without verification of the Village record and that since the schedule lands are situated in an estate village, in order to get ryotwari patta, the claimant has to prove possession and occupation from the notified date until Regulation 2 of 1970 came into force. He further held that as no documentary evidence was filed either by the petitioners or respondent Nos.4 and 5 except certain xerox copies of orders, both the parties failed to prove their title to the schedule land. On that premise, respondent No.2 set aside order, dated 23.12.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer, Venkatapuram – II. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed appeal before respondent No.1. While setting aside the order of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 conceded the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5 holding that they have proved their continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule land as on the date of coming into force of Regulation 2 of 1970 i.e. 01.07.1971. At the hearing, Sri K.Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 committed grievous error in reversing the well- considered order of the Settlement Officer, by which, the petitioners were granted ryotwari patta. Alternatively, he contended that even if respondent No.1 was convinced about correctness of the order of respondent No.2, who set aside the patta granted in favour of the petitioners by the Settlement Officer, he ought not to have directed granting of pattas in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, because they have not filed any appeal against the order of respondent No.2. Sri K.Manikyala Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, however, sought to justify the order passed by respondent No.1 on the ground that as a matter of fact, he found respondent Nos.4 and 5 being in possession as on the notified date. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the order of respondent No.2 as confirmed by respondent No.1 to the extent of setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta to the petitioners, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 found that the petitioners failed to file proper evidence in order to show that they were in possession of the property as on 01.07.1971. These findings falling in the realm of appreciation of evidence, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the finding of facts. Hence, the said orders to the extent of rejection of the claim of the petitioners are not liable to be interfered with. As regards the contention of Sri K.Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1 committed serious error in accepting the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5 for granting ryotwari pattas, I find force in it. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.4 and 5 failed to question the order of respondent No.2 wherein he held that both the parties failed to establish their possession as on the notified date. Unless they question the said order, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to direct granting of ryotwari pattas to respondent Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, the direction given by respondent No.1 in his order, dated 28.08.2000 to the extent of conceding the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5 suffers from serious error of jurisdiction and the order to that extent is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed in part. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 6th AUGUST, 2008. kvni