Judgment :- V. Eswaraiah, J. This writ appeal has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa Mandal of Vizianagaram district, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in WP No.16583 of 1997, dated 04.11.1998, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, questioning the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 03.07.1997 passed in RC No.2312/91/A. 1. 2. The first appellant-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram by order dated 03.07.1997 set aside the order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Field Check Officer), S.Kota, in granting patta in favour of the respondent herein in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.28 cents in old Survey No.61, corresponding to re-settlement No.100/16. The respondent herein filed W.P. No.16583 of 1997, questioning the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 03.07.1997, on the ground that she is the absolute owner of the land, an extent of Ac.1.26 cents in old Survey No.61 of Denderu village of Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram district, which was given as a service inam to one late Gampa Lingappa, who was mirasidar in the year 1909, by the then District Collector. As per proceedings in D.Dis No.580, dated 02.02.1909, the said land was given as a ‘service inam’ in recognition of ‘Mirasi service’. The said land has been in possession and enjoyment of the family of the said Lingappa and the respondent is the last heir of the family of the said Lingappa. It is further stated that all along, land revenue was paid to the respective authorities, but in the settlement records, a mistake has been crept in and the land was wrongly classified as ‘poramboke’. In order to rectify the mistake that was noticed, the Government ordered final check operations in terms of the provisions of the Board’s Standing Orders. A Special Tahsildar was appointed for the purpose of conducting an enquiry and to rectify the mistakes. It is stated that the Special Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry, ordered issuance of Ryotwari Patta No.132 in favour of the respondent by following procedure contemplated under Section 34-D of Board’s Standing Orders. According to Section 34-D of the Board’s Standing Orders, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Field Check Officer) has called for the objections and after observing all the procedural formalities, ordered issuance of patta and correction of classification from ‘poramboke’ to ‘ryotwari dry’ in the year 1980. According to Section 34-D of the Board’s Standing Orders, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Field Check Officer) has called for the objections and after observing all the procedural formalities, ordered issuance of patta and correction of classification from ‘poramboke’ to ‘ryotwari dry’ in the year 1980. It is stated that out of the said land, the respondent has donated an extent of 15 cents in favour of the District Cooperative Society, in which a choultry was constructed and drinking water well and tank was also dug. It is stated that due to village politics a false petition was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of the grant of patta in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer initiated proceedings after lapse of 17 years on 03.07.1997, in exercise of his powers made under Section 34-D (iv). It is the contention of the respondent that the said impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in exercise of the appellate powers under the said provision, after a lapse of 17 years, is therefore illegal and arbitrary. 2. 3. A counter has been filed in the writ petition by the appellants contending that the respondent is not the owner of the said land and according to the initial survey, the land was shown as ‘communal poramboke’ and the survey and settlement wing is the competent authority to decide the classification of land and state of things that exist on ground and they have settled the said land as ‘communal poramboke’ locally known as ‘Koneru poramboke’, assigning survey number as 100/16, correlating to old Sy.No.61. It is further stated that the respondent is not the owner of the land either in Sy.No.100/16 or 100/17 of Denderu village in respect of the said Ac.1.28 cents. It is further contended by the appellants that the respondent herein is not the absolute owner by virtue of orders of the then District Collector by proceedings D.Dis No.580 dated 02.02.1909, which is evident from the orders said to have been filed by the respondent before the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is stated that the application filed by the respondent for grant of patta, was rejected. According to pre-abolition and post-abolition records, the village was estate land and the said land was classified as ‘Government poramboke’ and therefore, the Government alone is the owner of the said land. It is stated that the application filed by the respondent for grant of patta, was rejected. According to pre-abolition and post-abolition records, the village was estate land and the said land was classified as ‘Government poramboke’ and therefore, the Government alone is the owner of the said land. Even according to the respondent, the ‘service inam’ was in respect of land in Sy.No.100/17, but not in respect of land in Sy.No.100/16, correlated to old Sy.No.61. It is further stated that the husband of the respondent was village Karnam at that time and subsequently also he continued as Village Administrative Officer and they did not make any attempt to get the land converted into ‘Zeroyithi land’ and they never tried to agitate their claim before the appropriate authority under the Estate Abolition Act for a ‘Ryotwari patta’. According to the appellants, if the said land really belongs to the respondents and if they were cultivating the said land, they could have made an attempt to get the patta under Estate Abolition Act. As per the records, the said land was recorded as ‘poramboke land’ only. The respondent cannot claim the said land as her own, simply because, the final check operation authority in the proceedings P.No.1/79 dated 14.04.1979, the Special Deputy Tahsildar, S.Kota, has erroneously treated the subject land as ‘patta land’ of the respondent, which itself is a mistake. Thus it is the contention of the appellants that taking advantage of the said mistake in the said proceedings, the respondent is trying to grab the government land. It is further stated that the said order is not a concise order or an order passed under the provisions of any Act. It is further stated that the Government also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said Special Deputy Tahsildar and the husband of the respondent was also placed under suspension. It is stated that said land was a Government poramboke, even according to re-survey and settlement operations, and there was no error committed in classification of the said land. According to the initial survey and as per re-settlement survey, it was classified as ‘poramboke land’. Either the respondent or the so-called mirasi service imamdars never hesitated before the authorities concerned, claiming the said land as ‘rythi land’. According to the initial survey and as per re-settlement survey, it was classified as ‘poramboke land’. Either the respondent or the so-called mirasi service imamdars never hesitated before the authorities concerned, claiming the said land as ‘rythi land’. It was stated that there was no error during the re-settlement operations and therefore, the order passed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar was illegal and arbitrary. It is also stated that taking advantage of the mistake committed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, classifying the said ‘poramboke land’ wrongly as ‘ryotwari land’, and the respondent donating an extent of 15 cents to the Cooperative Society and the construction of choultry in some portion of the said land, did not create any right in favour of the respondent. In fact, the husband of the respondent was the President of the said Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. It is also the case of the appellants that the said land belongs to the government and as per the Estate Abolition Act, all the poramboke lands vested with the Government. It is further stated that as per the initial survey and re-settlement operations, the said land was classified as a ‘tank poramboke’ covered by RS No.100/16, correlated to old Sy.No.61. During the supplemental survey operations, the said Sy.No.100/16 was erroneously correlated to Sy.No.100/17 classifying illegally as ‘ryoti land’ and therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer rightly corrected the said error when it was brought to his notice by way of complaint. It is further stated that either the respondent or her predecessors never claimed the said land before the competent authority i.e., Settlement Officer, therefore, she cannot question the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which only corrected the mistake crept in the records. It is further stated that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that fraud has been played and therefore, the question of application of any limitation does not arise and the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to order correction in the records. 1. 4. The respondent also filed a reply, but there was no answer as to how the said Sy.No.100/16 correlated to Sy.No.100/17. Admittedly, the subject matter of the land is in respect of initial Sy.No.61 and in re-settlement, it was correlated to Sy.No.100/16. 1. 4. The respondent also filed a reply, but there was no answer as to how the said Sy.No.100/16 correlated to Sy.No.100/17. Admittedly, the subject matter of the land is in respect of initial Sy.No.61 and in re-settlement, it was correlated to Sy.No.100/16. It appears that pursuant to the proceedings in P.No.1/79 dated 14.04.1979 of the recording Authority and Special Deputy Tahsildar, S.Kota, the said land of Ac.1.28 cents in Sy.No.100/16 correlates to old Sy.No.61 was recorded as ‘patta land’ of the respondent herein. Thereafter in the revenue records, the said land was shown as if situated in Sy.No.100/17. The Revenue Divisional Officer set aside those proceedings in the impugned order. The learned Single Judge without going into the merits of the case, set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, only on the ground that as per Section 34-D of Board’s Standing Orders, an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order of the Revenue Officer or against the changes effected by him in the revenue accounts as a result of re-survey, supplemental survey, without restricting to settlement, within 30 days from the date of communication of the orders or changes effected. 2. 5. In the instant case, the Revenue Divisional Officer entertained the appeal, after lapse of 17 years, and set aside the order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (FCO), S.Kota in granting a patta in respect of the said land and in showing the said land in Sy.No.100/17. 3. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the Special Deputy Tahsildar was not having any power or authority for grant of patta, but he was entitled to rectify the mistake occurred in respect of classification. But in the present case, admittedly, the said land was shown as a ‘poramboke land’ both in the pre-abolition records and pre-settlement records, locally called as ‘Koneru poramboke’ and the respondent or her predecessors never tried to attempt to get ryotwari patta under the Estates Abolition Act. It is stated that unless patta is granted under Estate Abolition Act, the ryots will not get any right and the land vests with the Government only. It is stated that no attempt has been made by the respondent to get the patta from the Settlement Authorities. 4. 7. It is stated that unless patta is granted under Estate Abolition Act, the ryots will not get any right and the land vests with the Government only. It is stated that no attempt has been made by the respondent to get the patta from the Settlement Authorities. 4. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the provisions under Section 34-D of Board’s Standing Orders has no application to the present case, as it is for the respondent to file an appeal against the entries entered in resettlement records, which was admittedly shown as ‘tank poramboke’ and if that be so, the Special Deputy Tahsildar was not at all an authority to grant patta and therefore the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is only an order correcting the revenue records. It is further contended that the husband of the respondent was a Patwari at that time and subsequently, became Village Administrative Officer and he also never taken any steps to get the ryotwari patta from the competent authority and in fact, he being husband of the respondent, played fraud on the authorities in getting classification of the said ‘poramboke land’ as ‘patta land’ based on some unregistered document i.e., gift deed dated 05.02.1970. The respondent is claiming the said land of Ac.1.28 cents in Sy.No.100/16 under the gift deed, but not the land in Sy.No.100/17. Admittedly, there is no patta granted by any competent authority to the respondent. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the entry of the respondent’s name in the revenue records as pattedar, there being no patta granted by the competent authority in favour of the respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has rightly set aside the entry made in the revenue records, holding that name of the respondent is erroneously entered as pattedar. 5. 8. 5. 8. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the Revenue Divisional Officer has erroneously entertained the appeal and the said appeal is not maintainable, we are of the opinion that, when the allegation of fraud has been made, and admittedly, in the absence of grant of any patta in favour of the respondent, it cannot be said that the Revenue Divisional Officer has exercised powers under Section 34-D, but he has exercised powers only to rectify the mistake in entering the name of the respondent as ‘pattedar’ in respect of poramboke land. Further, when the fraud has been alleged and admittedly, in the absence of any patta and when the matter has been brought to the notice of the Revenue Divisional officer on a complaint of the Sarpanch and without making the said Sarpanch as a party, and when the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is appealable to the District Collector, we are of the opinion that the writ petition could not have been allowed by the learned Single Judge, on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. However, we make it clear that, as the respondent claims to be in possession, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the concerned Settlement Authority, namely, the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam to conduct an enquiry under Section 11-A of the Estates Abolition Act by exercising the suo-motu powers and decide whether the respondent is entitled for ryotwari patta or not, under the Estate Abolition Act, or, whether the said land is a ryoti land or a tank poramboke, independently, without in any way being influenced by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge or the orders passed by this Bench, or without reference to the proceedings passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in accordance with law, and based on records. Till the orders passed under Section 11-A, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. The Settlement Authority shall decide the issue, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. 10. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Assistant Settlement Officer cum the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam also. 7. 11. The Settlement Authority shall decide the issue, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. 10. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Assistant Settlement Officer cum the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam also. 7. 11. In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of with the above observations. No order as to costs.