This writ petition is filed challenging the order in RP No.43/2003-A1 dated 18.12.2004 passed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, under Section 5(2) of the E.A. Act, 1948, wherein the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna, in SR No.11 (b)/2/85, dated 24.5.2003 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, was confirmed.

2. The facts are not in dispute. It appears originally One Damera Parthasaradhi was granted patta against the land in an extent of Ac.15.00 in R.S.No.328 of Royyum village, Krishna District, in patta No.15 under Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Thereafter, the said Parthasaradhi seems to have sold the entire land of Ac.15.00 in favour of One Bommadevara Krishna Murthy in the year 1947 under a registered sale deed with some conditions. Since the said Bommadevara Krishna Murthy did not satisfy the conditions, the original pattadar-Damera Parthasaradhi filed O.S.No.208 of 1961 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vijayawada. The suit was decreed as prayed for and in execution of the said decree in E.P.No.73/71, on 15.11.1971, the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.15.00 in R.S.No.328 was put to public auction and the petitioner was declared as successful bidder and the same was confirmed in his favour and ultimately the Principal District Munsif issued a sale certificate engrossed on non-judicial stamps worth Rs.337-50 ps., on 15.11.1971. According to the petitioner, he was also put in possession of the same and he has been enjoying the said land. The same was reflected in the revenue records.

3. As per the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the land under claim is Padugai land and the petitioner is not in possession of the land since 1.7.1939 and he is not having right to get patta under Section 11(b) of the Act 26/1948 and the petitioner is a mere encroacher in the said land, but as from 10(1) account of Royyuru village as on 1.7.1939 the old survey No.67 consisting of an extent of Ac.15.00 is in the name of Damera Parthasaradhi Rao with patta No.15 as Bhukthadar and the name of the Krayadar is Bommadevara Krishna Murthy Naidu. The Assistant Village Karanam who was examined as P.W.4 has stated that the occupation of the subject land by the petitioner is treated as unobjectionable and the occupations are being booked for the land under claim and 'B' memo charges have been collected because of the subject land is a Government land.

4. It appears this was the reason why the petitioner was advised to go before the revenue authorities under the Estates Abolition Act for issuance of patta. But the fact shows that in suit O.S.No.208 of 1961 in pursuance of the auction conducted by the Principal District Munsif Court, Vijayawada, the petitioner purchased the same and the sale certificate was also issued in his favour. Merely because the petitioner was not in possession though the name of Damera Parthasaradhi was recorded as Pattadar with patta No.15 under the Estates Abolition Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the land. The petitioner is a third party to all the proceedings before the Court as well as before the authorities under the Estates Abolition Act i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein. He purchased the land in an auction conducted by the Court. May be that he wanted to see that there will not be any future litigation. Therefore, he approached the authorities under the Estates Abolition Act for the purpose of issuance of patta, which is refused by both the authorities.

5. The sale certificate issued by the Court is not in dispute. The entries made in favour of Damera Parthasaradhi as pattadar No.15 to an extent of Ac.15.00 in Royyuru village, Krishna District is also not in dispute. If that is so, the mere entries somewhere reflected in the revenue records prior to the entry will not have any effect or bearing about the title of the petitioner herein. In fact, there was no nec