THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH Writ Petition No.585 of 2005 DT. 3.2.2011 Between: Goli Chandraiah and ors … Petitioners And The Commissioner of Appeals and ors … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K Manikyalrao Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Land Acquisition The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 585 of 2005 ORDER : The present writ of certiorari is filed seeking to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 17.12.2003 in L1/737/2000 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and to consequently direct the respondents to grant Ryotwari Patta in respect of land admeasuring H.1.04 acres and H.1.44 acres in survey No. 31/1 and 31/2P, Chinabandirevu village, Dummugudem mandal, Khammam district. The case of the petitioner is that the erstwhile Estate Holder of Bhadrachalam Zamin Estate lawfully inducted him into possession of subject dry land in the year 1940 and that he has cleared the forest growth and brought the land into cultivation by spending huge amounts. Under notification dated 10.11.1952 the Bhadrachalam Estate was taken over under the provisions of Madras Estate Abolition Act, 1948, which includes Chinabandirevu village. That the A.P. Schedule Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 1970 (Regulation 2/70) came into force w.e.f. 1.7.1971, thereupon, the ryots in the taken over estate, claimed ryotwari pattas under the new regulations. The Settlement Officer, Rajahmundry has taken up the case of the petitioner suo-moto under section 9 of the A.P. Regulation 2/70 for grant of ryotwari patta and without making any enquiry, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide proceedings in Case No. 2320 dated 26.5.1976 holding that petitioner was not granted any patta by Estate Holder and his occupation is not lawful but it is by way of encroachment after estate was taken over by the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, the first petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement, A.P. Hyderabad/second respondent, and the same was dismissed by order dated 2.9.2000 holding that the appellant had not established his title over the schedule land as required under first proviso to section 7 91) of Regulation 2/70, the relevant portion of the said order reads as under; “iii).. The appellant did not produce any pre- abolition records either in the lower court or before this Court to establish his constructive possession over the suitland. Admittedly the appellant occupied the schedule land in the 1940, he would have established his possession right from 1940 by adducing corroborative documentary evidence. Hence, the first contention of the appellant fails. iv).. With regard to the second ground of appeal, the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to rebut the findings of the Settlement Officer, Rajahmundry, that the appellant was not granted any patta by the Estate Holder that the occupation is not lawful but it is by way of encroachment. Hence, this contention also fails. v).. In respect of third ground of appeal, the appellant himself admitted that hehas been in possession and enjoyment of the scheduleland since 1940 till today without any interruption by paying LR to Government. But no documents are produced in support of this contention. Hence it fails.” As against the above order, the petitioner preferred a further appeal under Section 9 (3) of A.P. Regulation 2/70 which was also dismissed by order dated 17.12.2003 confirming the order dated 2.9.2000. The relevant portion of order dated 17.12.2003 reads as under; “…..Even in the second appeal filed before this Court, the Appellant had not filed any documentary evidence to establish his title over the schedule land and how he came into possession of the claim lands. The report of enquiry conducted by the field staff of the Settlement Officer’s office shows that the Appellant encroached theland subsequent to the notified date of the Estate and it was registered as 2A land. Therefore,it is evident that the possession of the Appellant over the schedule land is only by way of encroachment.…..” In view of the above concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned, it is apparently clear that the petitioner failed to establish his claim as to possession over the subject land in the year 1940 or as on the date of commencement of A.P. Schedule Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulations, 1970. Even in the present writ petition, the petitioner reiterated the self same grounds which were considered by the authorities and not made out any case, warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 3.2..2011 TVK 102 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 585 OF 2005 Date: 3.2.2011