IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1749, 1750 and 1751 of 2008 WRIT APPEAL No.1739 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7723 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri P.Bhushan Kumar, R/o. Bhogole Village, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra pradesh, Nampally Hyderabad 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 3 The Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari District 5 The Divisonal Forest Officer,Eluru West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1740 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7737 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Rayi Venkayya (Died). 2 R.S.R.K.Vara Prasada Rao, S/o. Late Venkayya, Hindu, R/o. # 24A/10/6/6, Ashok Nagar, Near M.R.C. Womens Hostel, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra pradesh,Nampally,Hyderabad 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan, D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089 Narayanaguda Hyderabad 3 The Settlement officer cum Joint Collector Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Mandal REvenue officer, Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari District 5 The Divisonal Forest officer, Eluru West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1741 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7720 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. Katikineni Manga Thayaramma (Hindu) R/o. Chintalapudi Village & Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Settlements Survey Bhavan D.No. 3-5/1088 & 1089, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. 3 Settlement Officer cum Joint Collector Eluru West Godavari District. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari District. 5 The Divisional Forest Officer Eluru West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1742 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7735 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Gudla Nookaratnam, W/o. Appala reddy,Hindu, Bhogolu Village Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 3 The Settlement officer-cum-Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari District 5 The Divisonal Forest officer,Eluru West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1743 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7724 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Raji venkayya (died) 2 R.S.R.K. Vara Prasada Rao S/o Late Venkayya R/o # 24A/10/6/6, Ashok Naa, Near MRC. Women's Hostel Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 3 The Settlement officer-cum-Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari District 5 The Divisonal Forest officer,Eluru West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1744 of 2008 Data not entered. WRIT APPEAL NO : 1745 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7721 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Eluru Pasdmavathi D/o. Subbamma (Died) 2 Inuganti Venkata Satya Pwrasad S/o. Late E. Padmavathi, Hindu W.G. District. 3 Inuganti Krishna Rao S/o. Late E. Padmavathi, Hindu W.G. District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Hyderabad 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 3 The Settlement officer-cum-Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari District 5 The Divisonal Forest officer,Eluru West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1746 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 5864 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Bommareddy Chandra Sekhara Reddy S/o.Rami Reddy R/o.Bhogole village Longapalem Mandal West Godavari District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan, D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089 Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Settlement officer cum Joint Collector Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1749 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7736 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Meka Rajyalakshmi Tayaramma (Died), 2 Meka Simhadri Appa Rao, S/o. Late Meka Rajyalakshmi Tayaramma, R/o. Nuzvidu, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan, D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 3 The Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 The Divisonal Forest Officer, Eluru West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1750 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7719 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Damera Subba Rao S/o Pullaiah R/o. Bhogole Village,Longapalem Mandal, West Godavari District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 3 The Settlement officer-cum-Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari District 5 The Divisonal Forest officer,Eluru West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1751 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 7722 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Damera Rama Rao, (Died), 2 Damera Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Hindu R/o. Viruvuru (V&M), Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey Bhavan, D.No.3-5/1088 and 1089, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 3 The Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 The Divisonal Forest Officer, Eluru West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1749, 1750 and 1751 of 2008 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Since the entire batch of writ appeals relates to the same subject matter and arise out of the common order, dated 25-11-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in the respective writ petitions, with the consent of both the parties, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri S. Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. All the above Writ Appeals are directed against the common order, dated 25-11-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.7723 of 2008 and batch, dismissing the writ petitions. 4. Appellants are petitioners and respondents are respondents in the writ petitions. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the writ petitions. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and their predecessors were in possession and occupation of the land in dispute as on the crucial date i.e., 01-07-1945 on which date the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for brevity “the Act”) came into force and, therefore, they are entitled for allotment of the Ryotwari pattas as postulated under Section 11 (a) of the Act. 7. The petitioners have relied on certain documents and the same were considered by the authorities concerned at different stages and eventually the revisional authority i.e., the first respondent, by common order, dated 16-10-2003, in revision petition No.P2/719/1998 and batch, rejected the revision petitions of the petitioners, confirming the orders, dated 23-10-1997, of the second respondent in R.P.No.23/82(B1) and batch. Aggrieved by the same, the present batch of writ petitions has been filed. 8. The learned single Judge, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, dismissed the writ petitions, at the stage of admission, through the impugned common order, dated 25-11-2008. Hence the present appeals. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the wit petitions have been dismissed, at the admission stage, and no material had been pressed into service by the respondents. 10. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be correct. However, having regard to the other material and the information that was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge, the matter has been decided on merits. 11. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the findings recorded by the learned single Judge are contrary to the material available on record. 12. This is a serious and contentious issue, which can be decided only after perusing the records that are available to the Court. 13. Admittedly, no records have been produced by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, inasmuch as, the writ petitions had been dismissed, in limini, at the stage of admission. For the same reason, this Court also is not able to express any view on merits. Though the learned single Judge had assigned a detailed reasoning, the same cannot be appreciated by this Court, inasmuch as, no related documents or records are produced before this Court in order to test the said findings recorded by the learned single Judge on merits. 14. May be, the learned single Judge was right in arriving at the said decision. But, obviously the same were made without looking into the records available to the Court. May be, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, at different stages the petitioners have lost their case and eventually lost the battle at the hands of the first respondent as well. Still, that fact itself cannot weigh by this Court in order to record a finding against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents- Government. 15. As already pointed out, the entire material as regards the possession and the rights of the petitioners, arising out of the provisions of the Act, are to be decided basing on the material available with the respondents, which obviously was not made available to the learned single Judge while passing the impugned common order. In which event, in our considered view, the learned single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the case, for the simple reason that sometimes the record may speak something different from what has been adverted to by the counsel. Therefore, it is very essential to look into the records. 16. However, it appears that in the impugned common order, the learned single Judge refers to some of the orders and proceedings issued by the other authorities. Therefore, the entire material on record has to be looked into by the first respondent as well as the learned single Judge before passing any final order. 17. Therefore, without expressing any view on merits, we feel it expedient to remit the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after going through the entire material on record and after applying his mind. 18. However, this judgment shall not be understood as the one that is passed on merits and the first respondent shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, independently and un-influenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge or by this Court, basing on the entire material available on record and after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties. 19. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeals are disposed of, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned common order, dated 25-11-2008, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.7723 of 2008 and batch. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 22-12-2008. Msr THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1749, 1750 and 1751 of 2008 (W.A.No.1739 of 2008 and batch) 22-12-2008 (Msr)