APHC010001962016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 10135 of Between: B.Vasanthamma @ B.Vasantha Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & 5 Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.S.V. MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 10135 of 2016 B.Vasanthamma @ B.Vasantha ...PETITIONER AND Revenue Department, Hyderabad & 5 Others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.V. MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “……….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of “Writ of Certiorari” calling for records relating to and connected with the orders made in CCLA’s proceedings No.P1/800/2008, dt.31.12.2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent, confirming the orders made in R.P.No.21/2007 (B1), dt.08.07.2008 on the file of the 3rd respondent including the orders made in SR.No.F5/7/11(a)/2004, dt.29.08.2006 on the file of the 4th respondent and to quash the same as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Estates (Abolition & Conversion in to Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and accordingly set aside the same, and consequently to allow the claim of the petitioner to pass such other order and further orders……” 3. The relevant facts of the case which lead to the filing of the present writ petition may briefly be stated thus: The maternal aunt of the writ petitioner one Smt.K.Rajamma, while she was alive filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of Ryothwari Patta over an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Survey No.7 of Nallarallapalle Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District. The land originally belongs to the Estate Holder one Mr.A.Krishnamachari. Initially, the Primary Authority rejected his claim vide Order dated 18.08.1986. He preferred a Revision before the Commissioner & Director of Survey, Settlement, Andhra Pradesh, who by proceedings dated 13.10.1999 set aside 3 the order dated 18.08.1986 and remanded the matter to the original authority. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the father of the petitioner died and as such she participated in the enquiry and by an order dated 29.08.2006, the 4th respondent i.e., the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor, rejected the claim petition. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the 4th respondent, the petitioner carried the matter by way of a Revision before the Commissioner & Director of Settlement / 3rd respondent. After considering the matter, the 3rd respondent vide Order dated 08.07.2008 confirmed the order of the 4th respondent / Settlement Officer and dismissed the Revision Petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein approached the 2nd respondent by way of a Revision under section 7 (d) of the Act. The 2nd respondent by an Order dated 31.12.2014 dismissed the Revision Petition and thereby confirmed the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 3 referred to above. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to impress upon this Court that the orders passed by the respondent authorities are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable in Law. He submits that the authorities passed cryptic orders, without assigning any reasons, much less by examining the claim of the petitioner in the proper perspective. He submits that when valuable rights of the parties are involved, the authorities are required to consider the same scrupulously, but not in a superficial manner. Making the said submissions, 4 the learned counsel urges for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the orders under challenge and to remand the matter for adjudication of the claim of the petitioner by the competent authority, afresh. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, except making a claim, had not produced any evidence to substantiate her claim and therefore the authorities have rejected the same, that the orders under challenge are well considered and warrants no interference by this Court. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 8. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the only point for adjudication is whether the orders under challenge are liable to be interfered with, that too in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 9. At the outset, it may be relevant to note that the orders under challenge were passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner through her counsel by the concerned authorities. However, before the original authority i.e., the 4th respondent where the claim petition was made, neither the petitioner’s father nor the petitioner herself filed any documents in support of their claim. The original authority in his order dated 29.08.2006 recorded that as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, G.D.Nellore, the lands in Survey No.7 with an extent Ac.24.00 cents is classified as AWD (Assessed 5 Waste Dry) covered by the boulders, bushes and there is no cultivation, the same are Non-Ryothwari lands and further that the lands are required for communal purpose. Even, the 3rd respondent in the Order dated 26.07.2008 categorically recorded that there is no evidence whatsoever filed in support of the claim either by the deceased claimant or by the Revision Petitioner (writ petitioner) either before the Settlement Officer or in the Revisional Court. Even the 2nd respondent in the proceedings dated 31.12.2014 filed against the order of the 3rd respondent, recorded categorical findings inter alia that the claim was made in the year 1984 after delay of 33 years, for which, there is no explanation, that the petitioner did not produce any documents in support of the claim before the Settlement Officer or Director of Settlement or before the 2nd respondent and dismissed the Revision Petition. 10. A cumulative reading of the orders passed by the authorities concerned would make it clear that no documents in support of the claim made by the petitioner were filed, in the absence of which, the petitioner cannot expect favourable orders for grant of Ryothwari patta over the subject matter lands. It is settled Law that the scope of judicial review in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and unless the orders of the authorities concerned are contrary to Law / statutory provisions or fraught with perversity, no interference is warranted. It may also be pertinent to note that even before this Court, no documents have been filed which prima facie, support the claim of the petitioner. 6 11. On a consideration of the orders under challenge, this Court, see no illegality and the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for want of the documentary evidence and the other reasons are well founded. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rejected. The point is answered accordingly. 12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J. Date: 04.02.2025 BLV 7 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.10135 of 2016 Date: 04.02.2025 BLV