The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.

JUDGMENT

A.V.SESHA SAI, J. - This Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, calls in question the order dtd. 18/12/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing W.P.No.4274 of 2009 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.

2. Shorn of inappropriate details, the background, leading to the filing of the present Letter Patent Appeal is as follows:

2.1).One Sri Polakala Kuppuswamy (deceased appellant No.1) filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Nellore (5th respondent herein), under Sec. 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, claiming ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.12.50 cents in Paimash No.394 and R.S.No.33 of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittor District. The Settlement Officer, Nellore vide order bearing S.R.No.6/11(a)/86/CTR, dtd. 12/6/1986, granted ryotwari patta in favour of Sri P.Kuppuswamy for the above said land.

2.2).Assailing the validity of the said order dtd. 12/6/1986, the District Collector, Chitoor, filed a revision petition under Sec. 5(2) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 before the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (respondent No.4) and since the original pattadar died, his legal representatives were brought on record. The Commissioner and Director of Settlements, vide order in R.P.No.73/87(BI), dtd. 20/9/2006, dismissed the said revision, holding that the Settlement Officer was not wrong in granting patta to Kuppuswamy.

2.3).Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban, filed a revision before the Commissioner of Appeals (3rd respondent herein) against the order passed by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, dtd. 20/9/2006. The Commissioner of Appeals, vide order dtd. 6/12/2008, dismissed the said revision.

2.4).Questioning the aforesaid orders of the Settlement Officer, dtd. 12/6/1986 as confirmed by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements and Commissioner of Appeals vide orders, dtd. 20/9/2006 and 6/12/2008, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4274 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of an order dtd. 18/12/2012, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer.

3. In the above background, questioning the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order, passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Letter Patent Appeal came to be preferred. The Division Bench of the Composite High Court, admitted the present writ appeal and in W.A.M.P.No.1003 of 2013, granted an order of status quo.

4. Heard Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Khadar Mohiddin, learned counsel for the appellants on record and Sri P.Bala Swamy, learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is highly erroneous and contrary to law; that since three authorities concurrently found in favour of the writ appellants, the learned Single Judge grossly erred in disturbing the finding of fact recorded in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity; that all the authorities afforded ample opportunity to the department to produce preabolition records; that all the three authorities, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants, unanimously declared and found the subject land to be a ryothy land; that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in placing reliance on the order in W.P.No.17645 of 2005 dtd. 10/11/2005, as the appellants herein were not parties to the said writ petition; that the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the report of the Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj, Tirupati dtd. 2/11/2006 in view of the finding of the Commissioner of Appeals that th