THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12929 of 2003 DATED 21.08.2009 BETWEEN: Lalam Krishna Rao and others … Petitioners AND The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITON NO.12929 OF 2003 ORDER: Four petitioners assailed proceedings of Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam District, second respondent herein, in Rc.No.4901/02/F-2, dated 17.05.2003. By the said impugned order, while partly allowing claim petition filed by respondents 5 to 23 herein (hereafter called, claimants) and directing Mandal Revenue Officer, Achuthapuram to issue ryotwari pattas to them, the Joint Collector also directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to cancel the D-form pattas given to petitioners. This is assailed on the ground that second respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel D-form pattas granted to petitioners during pendency of proceedings under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act, for brevity). To begin with, Pudimadaka village in erstwhile Yelamanchili taluk is part of Vizianagaram Zamin Estate. After coming into force of the Act, Government took over the Estate on 07.09.1949 and introduced settlement rates on 01.07.1960. Land admeasuring Acs.22.00 in survey No.56/1 in the said village was classified in the Government records as Poramboke land. Claimants, who alleged that their ancestors purchased lands under registered sale deed in 1950, disputed Government entries and filed claim petition before Settlement Officer for grant of pattas. After the case moved up and down from the revisional authority to revenue authorities and back, ultimately the final revisional authority, namely, Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records passed orders in Proceedings bearing No.P4/2025/79, dated 23.10.1981 holding that the land in R.S.No.56 is a ryoti land and that the land in R.S.No.57 is not ryoti land. Commissioner also directed grant of pattas in respect of land comprised in R.S.No.56 and further directed to cancel pattas granted for R.S.No.57/1, 2 and 3. Whatever be the reason, Commissioner’s order granting ryotwari patta under the Act was not implemented. In 2002, claimants moved the Joint Collector praying to cancel D- form pattas granted to petitioners and to grant ryotwari pattas under Section 11(a) of the Act to claimants. This was opposed by petitioners inter alia contending that grant of pattas to claimants is illegal and that their pattas cannot be cancelled. On considering the matter, while holding that he is not competent to cancel D-form pattas and that claimants may approach competent authority for cancellation of D-form pattas, Joint Collector directed Mandal Revenue Officer to issue ryotwari pattas. Curiously, he also directed Mandal Revenue Officer to cancel D-form pattas, if any. Joint Collector filed counter affidavit. Respondents 5 to 23 also filed counter opposing writ petition. It is, however, not necessary to refer to the contentions in detail. Suffice to mention that when matters were pending before the Commissioner or pursuant thereto, Tahsildar, Atchuthapuram granted D-form pattas to few individuals. In respect of others, pattadar pass books were issued presumably for the reason that those persons were in possession of the land. There is no dispute that by proceedings, dated 23.10.1981, Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records directed for grant of pattas to claimants in respect of R.S.No.56, which was determined as ryotwari land. Therefore, the order has to be implemented by granting ryotwari patta in respect of R.S.No.56 of Pudimadaka village. If the Joint Collector in furtherance of Commissioner’s orders directs Mandal Revenue Officer, Atchuthapuram to issue pattas to claimants, it cannot be faulted because the order of Commissioner has become final and there is no challenge to the same. Insofar as D-form pattas granted in respect of lands comprised in R.S.Nos.57/1, 2 and 3 and/or R.S.No.56 is concerned, even according to Joint Collector, he is not competent authority. As per BSO 15, it is the Revenue Divisional Officer who is competent to cancel the pattas and the Joint Collector is Revisional Authority under BSO 15(18). In certain circumstances, like fraud or misrepresentation, Joint Collector even by suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction under paragraph 18 of BSO 15 can do so. But that is not the case here. Therefore, the order of Joint Collector insofar as the same directs Mandal Revenue Officer to cancel D-form pattas is concerned cannot be sustained. If so advised, respondents 5 to 23 have to seek remedy by filing appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of pattas granted to petitioners or other persons in respect of land in R.S.No.56/1, for which pattas were directed to be issued by Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records as well as Joint Collector. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed, subject to above observations. The direction of Joint Collector to Mandal Revenue Officer, Atchuthapram to cancel D-form pattas granted to petitioners herein shall alone stand set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.08.2009 pln