Point of Law: Photocopies of the documents filed cannot be treated as “proved”. Pre-abolition records are not produced and proved. Even otherwise this Court while exercising functions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into such a seriously disputed question of fact.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders dated 11.07.2019 and 02.03.2013 in P1/1315/1999 of the Commissioner of Appeals, Vijayawada i.e., 7th respondent and the order dated 09.06.19999 in R.P.No.9/94HI of the 6th respondent i.e., Director of Settlements AP. And orders dated 13.04.1982 of 5th respondent i.e., Settlement Officer, Nellore at present Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer, Chittoor issued without following the provisions of the A.P. Estate Abolition Act, 1948 as unlawful and unjust suffering the communal interests and principles of Natural Justice and Article 330-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said impugned orders.”

2. This Court has heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the petitioners, Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment for Respondents 5 to 7.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue along with his submissions filed a note mentioning the dates and sequence of events. It is his contention that the land in Sy.No.91/4 of Daminedu Village is classified as Government Poramboke land and is registered is kunta poramboke. The possession of the petitioner is also strongly denied by the learned Government Pleader. The crux of the matter as per him is that the Settlement Officer’s order, dated 13.04.1982, is vitiated by a fraud and very serious allegations are made against the said Settlement Officer. It is also stated that in view of the fraudulent activity of the Settlement Officer, Government also issued orders directing the Collectors not to implement the orders of the said Officer. It is particularly asserted that he has granted a ryotwari patta for a water body ignoring the law on the subject and also the Board Standing orders. Learned Government Pleader draws the attention of this Court to all these issues and in particular raises an issue of delay in entertaining the matter by the Settlement Officer. It is also asserted that the land in Sy.No.91/4 is vacant land. Learned Government Pleader also relies upon the well known judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.V. Papayya Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 SCC 221 to argue that where fraud has been committed it will vitiate all the transactions and all orders. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, argues that this is a fit case in which the Court should interfere and set aside the orders dated 11.07.2019 of the Commissioner of Appeals (7th respondent), the order dated 09.06.1999 of the Director of Settlement along with order of the 5th respondent, dated 13.04.1982. Thus, the prayer in the Writ Petition is to set aside an order that was passed in 1982 which was confirmed by two other officers.

4. In reply to this learned counsel for the respondent Sri Subba Rao Korrapati relies upon the counter affidavit filed. He points out that from 1982 onwards the issue has been hanging in the air and despite the orders passed by higherups in the department on merits and also the Courts of competent jurisdiction the issue is still not decided. Learned counsel also points out that the order of the Settlement Officer is an order passed on merits of the matter after considering the oral and documentary evidence. This has been confirmed more than once by competent officers including the present respondents. A patta was initially set aside in April, 1990. The matter was remanded in 1994 and ultimately on 09.06.1999 the order passed in favour of Mr.M.Krishna Murthy, the husband of the 1st respondent was upheld. It is clearly held in that said order that the land is “ryoti” in nature and has been in possession and enjoyment of the respondents. Learned counsel points out that against the order dated 09.06.1999 a revision was filed before the 7th respondent, who dismissed the same by his orde