Common Judgment :

Ch. Manavendranath Roy, J.

Since these two writ appeals arise out of the order dated 10-8-2007 passed by a learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.18968 of 1998, both the writ appeals are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri T. Vishnu Teja, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1038 of 2012 and Sri A. Rangacharyulu, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. There is a long chequered history relating to the lis involved in these writ appeals. Before dealing with the facts of the appeals, it is apposite to consider the chronological events that took place right from the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, till the orders are passed by the Apex Court, based on which the matters are remanded to this Court for fresh disposal, after hearing both the appellants simultaneously and to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.

4. The dispute involved in the writ appeals pertains to rival claims made by a person, by name Sanapathi Appalanaidu and others (hereinafter referred to as “Sanapathi people”) and Pakki Raja Rammohan Roy and others (hereinafter referred to as “Pakki people”) relating to a land in an extent of Ac.20.00 bearing Patta No.7 popularly known as “Pream Beedu” situate at Mantripalem Village of Parawada Mandal of Visakhapatnam District (hereinafter referred to as “subject land”). Originally, Sanapathi people filed an application under Section 56(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Estates Abolition Act”) to declare them as lawful ryots of the subject land against Pakki people before the Settlement Officer of Visakhapatnam. Sanapathi people claimed to be the lawful ryots of the subject land and the Pakki people also claimed themselves to be rightful owners of the said land. Thus, there are rival claims made relating to subject land by both the Sanapathi people and the Pakki people. The said application filed by the Sanapathi people was rejected by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, by his order dated 29-7-1986. Be it noted here itself that one of the family members of Sanapathi people, who filed an application claiming to be the lawful ryots of the subject land, was examined as P.W.1 before the Settlement Officer in the enquiry conducted by him. He categorically and unequivocally admitted in his evidence that Pakki people i.e. Pakki Raja Rammohan Roy, Pakki Vimala, Dabbiru Srinivasarao and Dabbiru Lakshmi Narayana, have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land, which is in an extent of Ac.20.00 for the last 40 years. The learned Settlement Officer also clearly stated in his order that P.W.1 has admitted that Pakki people have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for the last 40 years.

5. After the application filed by Sanapathi people before the Settlement Officer was rejected on 29-7-1986, Sanapathi people did not prefer any appeal against the said order. But, Pakki people preferred an appeal before the Estates Abolition Tribunal cum District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in T.A.No.12 of 1986 challenging the order of the Settlement Officer in not considering the Pakki people as the lawful ryots of the subject land even though it is admitted by P.W.1 in his evidence that they are in possession of the subject land for the last 40 years, which was also taken note of in the order by the Settlement Officer. The said appeal preferred by the Pakki people in T.A.No.12 of 1986 was allowed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal cum District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the order of the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, was set aside and it is held that Pakki people are the lawful ryots of the subject land.

6. Thereafter, Pakki people filed W.P.No.7867 of 1991 before the erstwhile High Court of Andh