THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.35427 of 2012

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:-

“to declare the orders passed by the respondent No.1 vide case Nos.L1/466/2004 dt 23.07.2012 confirming the earlier order dt 31.08.2004, confirming the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3 dt 14.2.2002 and 23.10.1986 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of patta under A P Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Regulation 2/70 in respect of land admeasuring HC.0-78 equivalent to Ac.1- 95 cents RS No.211/2 and 100/1 situated at Pinepally(V) Bhadrachalam (M) of Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta in favour of petitioner in respect of the said land.”

2. Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner claims that the land admeasuring 0-13Hts and 0-65 Hts, total admeasuring 0-78 Hectors, equivalent to Ac.1-95 cents in Sy. No.211/2 and 100/1, situated at Pinapally Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal of Krishna District (located in agency area), is his ancestral property. Petitioner further claims that prior to 1930, the petitioner’s grandfather and father name was incorporated in the village records as pattedars and enjoyers and further stated that there is no tribal or communal interest involved in respect of the subject land and the same is purely a patta land. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has initiated Suo-Moto enquiry under section 9 of Regulation 2/70 of A.P Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulations for grant of Rytwari patta in respect of subject land. Thereafter, respondent No.2 in case No.6644/A vide order dated 23.10.1986, rejected the petitioner’s claim for grant of patta in respect of the subject land. Challenging the order dated 23.10.1986, petitioner filed an appeal bearing A.P.No.41/87/C1, before respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed on 14.02.2002 on the ground that the petitioner have failed to adduce relevant documentary evidence in support of continuous lawful possession for 8 years prior to 01.07.1971. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2002, petitioner filed an appeal bearing No.L1/179/2002 before the respondent No.1 and the same was also dismissed on 31.08.2004 on similar lines. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed review petition and respondent No.1 rejected the same on 23.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner have submitted receipts dated 14.03.1991 and 04.04.1934 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 without considering the old records and the said receipts, mechanically have passed order dated

23.10.1986, 14.02.2002, 31.08.2004 and 23.07.2012 and rejected issuance of ryotwari patta to the petitioner and pray this Court to set aside the same and direct the respondent authorities to grant patta to the petitioner in respect of the subject land.

4. Sri.H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and has drawn attention of this Court to the following paragraphs:-

“4.In reply to para 3 of the petitioner’s affidavit it is respectfully submitted that the writ petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions laid down under Regulation 2/70 i.e., the claimant must satisfy his continuous possession of not less than 8 years before the commencement of Regulation 2/70. The petitioner failed to establish his claim before the settlement officer as required under Regulation 2/70. A such, it is submitted that the writ petitioner is not entitled to be granted ryotwari patta unless the conditions mentions in the Regulation 2/70 are fully met with.

6. In reply to para 5 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that it is true that originally authority i.e., Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam has disallowed the claim of the writ petitioner in case