THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 2322 of 2003 ORAL ORDER: (Per Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J) This Appeal is preferred by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the State. Subject matter of the dispute relates to grant of patta under Estate Abolition Act in favour of the 3rd respondent. The brief facts are that with regard to an extent of 90 acres in Vedandapuram village in S.No. 251/1 of the then Chandragiri taluk, Chittoor District is the subject matter in the present Writ Appeal. The 3rd respondent made an application for grant of patta under Section 3 of A.P.(Andhra Area) Estated (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the “Act”). The said application was made on the ground that the land in question was granted to them by Sri Swamy Hathramji Mutt under Saswatha patta on 5.3.1943 and they were inducted into possession and enjoyment of the lands and old paimash No. for the suit land is 196 and 3rd respondent prior to his father was paying the cist and they have been cultivating the suit lands. They were specifically mentioned in the application that the suit lands are ryoti in nature and there is no communal interests are involved. In support of the said application, the 3rd respondent examined pw1 himself and p.w.2 is the ex-village Munsif of Vedantapuram village, who also confirmed the specific allegations of the 3rd respondent in his application. In addition to that, the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri filed his counter confirming the paimash Nos. 194, 196, 197, 198 and 200 are related to Survey No. 251/1 and that the lands in question are 300 meters away from the actual river coast and they are ryoti in nature and they are under regular dry crops cultivation. After considering the aforesaid evidence from the record, the Settlement Officer by his order dated 19.1.1982 granted patta in favour of the 3rd respondent. After about 8 years thereafter, the Director of Settlement entertained a suo motu revision under Section 5(2) of the Act and reversed the order of the Settlement Officer. Questioning the said orders of the Director of Settlements, the 3rd respondent preferred a revision under Section 7(d) of the Act before the learned Appellate Commissioner. The learned Appellate Commissioner has gone into and re-examined the entire matter and passed an order on 28.8.2000 has allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the learned Director of Settlements and confirmed the order of the learned Settlement Officer. Questioning the said order, the State has preferred Writ Petition No. 22069 of 2003. The learned Single Judge of this Court on facts held that the order of the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse suffering from any manifest or illegality. In addition to that the learned Single Judge found that though the said order was passed by the Commissioner on 28.8.2000, the Writ Petition questioning the same has been filed after more than 3 years. The Writ Petition was therefore dismissed at the admission stage on the merits as well as the ground of latches. Challenging the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred. We have heard the learned Govt. Pleader and Sri N. Subba Reddy appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri N. Vidyasagar for respondent No.4. It is contended by the learned Govt. Pleader that as is found by the Director of Settlements, the very grant of patta and the cist receipts produced by the 3rd respondent is not genuine and he further contends that there was a lot of delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in approaching the Settlement Officer for grant of patta. That the land in question is part of river poramboku and therefore is non-ryoti land and grant of patta is illegal. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that there is no material for the appellant to contend that the patta granted in favour of 3rd respondent’s ancestors by Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt is not genuine and on the contrary, the evidence of pw2 who has confirmed the said patta and the same was supported by the cist receipts Exs.P-2 to P-4. We also found that the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri filed a counter before the Settlement Officer confirming the lands in question are ryoti lands and 300 mtrs. away from the river and hence it cannot be said that it is a part of river poramboku and not eligible for grant of patta. So far as the 5th respondent is concerned, the claim of the said 3rd respondent was rejected by the Commissioner himself. We have considered both the submissions. It is evident from the order of the Settlement Officer that the grant of patta is based on the evidence of pws 1 and 2 as well as the documents Exs.P-1 to P-4 which are referred to above. In addition to that counter filed by the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri confirms the fact that the said lands are not part of river poramboku and the ryoti lands and dry crop cultivation. Even no material is filed to contradict the said counter of the Tahsildar and it is only on the basis of the settlement of the Mandal Revenue Officer that it is resorted to be contended that the land in question is not a ryoti land. The learned Commissioner has considered the above said aspects and no reasons to disbelieve the enquiry proceedings before the Settlement Officer including the admissions of the then Tahsildar in his counter. The learned Commissioner also entertained the suo moto revision after 8 years itself was just and contrary to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.16482 of 1990, dated 20.3.1992. The contention of the learned Govt. Pleader that the 3rd respondent has approached the Settlement Officer for grant of patta after a long delay and has also not sustainable in view of the fact that under the scheme of the Act, it is not necessary for every ryot to approach the Settlement Officer for grant of patta and in fact the Settlement Officer themselves after verification must proceed to grant patta. Even otherwise, if any ryot seeks patta under Section 11 of the Act, no limitation is prescribed. It cannot be, therefore, be said that mere delay would disentitled the 3rd respondent for grant of patta. Further, in view of the fact that the land was being cultivated and not a river poramboke as per the admissions of the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, the grant of patta by the Settlement Officer cannot be faulted and the learned Commissioner confirmed the same. We feel to conquer with the findings of the learned Single Judge and we find no latches to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Appeal accordingly, is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 31.3.2009 CHV