IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI WRIT PETITION No.6184 of 1995 Between: 1. Appana Ramana Rao S/o.Suranna, R/o.Chintur Post and Mandal Khammam. 2. Appana Veera Babu S/o.Suranna, R/o.Chintur Post and Mandal Khammam. ... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Director of Settlements, Government of A.P., Gagan Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The Settlement Officer, Baddrachalam, Khammam District. 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintur, Mandal Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the Respondents 1 to 3 made in case Nos.File.No.L1/978/83, A.P.No.671/79 and S.R.No.2478/77 respectively rejecting the claim of patta in favour of the petitioners with regards to land admeasuring 3-84 Hectares in Revenue Survey.Nos.83/2, 93/8, 94/4 and 103/2, situated at Chintur Post and Mandal, Khammam District are illegal, contrary to law and evidence, arbitrary, mala fide and much against to the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970 and consequently direct the Respondents to grant patta with regards to the above land in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.PALIVELASATYARAJA BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the first respondent and other respondents. The allegation of the petitioner was that he comes into possession, as a tenant of the suit land, ten years prior to 1970. Three authorities have considered the issue and all the three authorities have come to a conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of the land eight years prior to coming into force of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 (‘the Regulations’ for brevity). In accordance with 7 (a) of the Regulations, a person who was in possession or occupation of the land for a continuous period of not less than eight years immediately before the commencement of this Regulation was entitled to a Ryotwari patta. Since three authorities below have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of the land for eight years prior to enforcement of Regulations, he is not entitled to a Ryotwari patta. Therefore, I do not find any ground to this Court to interfere in the matter. The petitioner relied on some agreement, which had been executed by Izaradar in his favour, in the year 1964. In this view of the matter no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ Date: August 26, 2004. BILAL NAZKI, J YS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Director of Settlements , Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gagan vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The Settlements Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintur (M), Khammam Dist. 5. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (O.U.T) 6. Two C.D. Copies.