ORDER :

1. With the consent of all the learned counsels appearing for the parties both these writ petitions themselves were taken up together for hearing.

2. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned senior counsel appears for the writ petitioners. He argued the matter at length. Learned senior counsel submits that the writ petitioners are the owners of the property measuring Ac.17.32 cents in Sy.Nos.385, 386 and 387. Later, the survey numbers were sub-divided as Sy.Nos.385/1, 385/2, 386/1, 386/2, 387/1 and 387/2 of Ramapuram Village. The petitioners claim to have secured their title through K. Ramaswamy Vodayar and others who granted pattas to the claimants under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. It is stated that thereafter the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and have developed the same. They claim to have developed a mango garden in the said area and were enjoying the property. The 2nd respondent, according to the learned senior counsel, exercised suo motu revision on the representation of a third party and cancelled the pattadar pass books granted to the petitioners and also directed the resumption of the land. According to the learned senior counsel, the patta was granted in 1980. Pattadar pass books were granted in 2001 and thereafter and order of cancellation was passed on 15.11.2001. He submits that the whole action is arbitrary and is barred by law. He also submits that since a ryotwari patta was granted to the vendors, the land ceased to be a Government land and that therefore, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) does not apply. Lastly, he submits that while exercising the Act, the Joint Collector cannot pronounce anything on the validity of the patta granted under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Relying upon a compilation of case law, learned senior counsel argues that the revision is patently barred by time. He relies upon :

(1) State of H.P. and others v. Rajkumar Brijender Singh and others, (2004) 10 SCC 585,

(2) Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport and others, (2010) 8 SCC 467,

(3) A. Janardhana v. Union of India and others, (1983) 3 SCC 601,

(4) Surinder Singh v. State of H.P. and others, 2006 (2) ShimLC 237 and

(5) Lingamdinne Chandrasekhar Reddy and others v. Joint Collector, Kadapa and others, 2009 (4) ALT 593.

3. The primary contention basing on the first four judgments is about the delay and on the basis of the last judgment he argues that under the Act, while exercising power of revision, the Joint Collector cannot pronounce on the legality of the patta granted under the Estate Abolition Act. Learned counsel points out that the Joint Collector has also ignored section 12 of the Act, which states that nothing in the Act shall apply to the land belonging to the State Government. While holding that the land is State Government land, learned senior counsel submits that the Joint Collector cancelled the pattas. In addition, he also submits that W.P.No.10976 of 2022 had to be filed against the Government since the respondents were interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the land. He submits that the issue of law and fact are similar, but in W.P.No.10976 of 2022 the prayer is for a Mandamus against the invasion of the petitioners rights. Learned senior counsel in conclusion submits that if W.P.No.10837of 2010 is heard and allowed on merits, as a consequence, W.P.No.10976 of 2022 should also be allowed.

4. In W.P.No.10976 of 2022, the State has filed a detailed counter and Government Pleader for Revenue argued on the merits of the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, Sy.Nos.385, 387 of Ramapuram Village are classified as Kaluva poramboke and Gutta poramboke. In 1970, the land was sub-divided and pattas were assigned to about six people. Since the assignees did not cultivate the land, possession was taken over by the State. It is also pointed out that when Ramaswamy Vodayar filed an application un