Judgment : Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in implementing the settlement patta granted by respondent No.2 on 22.12.1980 and confirmed by the Director of Settlements, the Commissioner of Appeals and this Court, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would show that the father of petitioner No.1 by name late K. Chenga Reddy made an application under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”) for grant of a settlement patta in respect of Ac.8.00 comprised in Sy.No.134 and Ac.4.60 cents in Sy.No.136/1 of Daminedu Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. The Settlement Officer, after holding enquiry, granted settlement patta vide his proceedings S.R.No.61/11(a)/80/CTR, dated 22.12.1980. The settlement patta was questioned by the District Collector, Chittoor, by way of a revision filed under Section 5(2) of the Act before the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, A.P. The said revision was dismissed by order dated 08.06.2000. A further revision filed before the Commissioner of Appeals ended in its dismissal under order dated 22.11.2003. The District Collector, Chittoor, filed Writ Petition No.16781 of 2008 against these orders. The said Writ Petition was dismissed, whereby the hierarchical orders passed in favour of the petitioners received affirmation. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that as the said order was not questioned in letters patent by the Collector or any other officer, the same has attained finality. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been approaching respondent Nos.2 and 3 for implementation of the settlement patta by incorporating their names in the revenue records and issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds, no steps in this direction have been taken by the said respondents. The petitioners further pleaded that from the time of their ancestors their family is in continuous possession of the land for more than 66 years and non-implementation of the settlement patta is disabling them from raising loans from the Banks or other financial institutions. The petitioners further pleaded that from the time of their ancestors their family is in continuous possession of the land for more than 66 years and non-implementation of the settlement patta is disabling them from raising loans from the Banks or other financial institutions. That even in the month of September, 2010 the petitioners have personally met respondent No.3 with a reminder to implement the settlement patta on which the latter has informed that respondent No.2 has directed him not to implement the patta and that when the petitioners met respondent No.2 personally, he claimed that Sy.No.134 admeasuring Ac.8.00 is a Government land. It is averred that the stand of respondent No.2 is contrary to the settlement patta, as confirmed in revisions and the Writ Petition and is patently arbitrary. 3. When this Writ Petition came up on 02.11.2010, this Court called upon the respondents to report to the Court the reasons for non-implementation of the settlement patta, which has become final. As no instructions were reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on 13.12.2010, personal presence of respondent No.3 was ordered. Accordingly, he was present in the Court on 20.12.2010 and counter affidavit of respondent No.1 was filed. 4. In the counter affidavit, respondent No.1 has maintained that the land admeasuring Ac.8.00 in Sy.No.134 was classified as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ and the land in Sy.No.136/1 was classified as ‘Kunta Poramboke’, which is locally called as Naga Pillai Kunta. Respondent No.1, however, admitted that a settlement patta was granted in respect of these lands and the appeal and revision filed under Sections 5(b) and 7(d) of the Act were dismissed and that Writ Petition No.16781 of 2008 filed against these orders was also dismissed on 11.08.2008. Respondent No.1 also averred that one T. Murali @ Seshachari has made a claim under Section 11(a) of the Act for grant of patta over the land in Sy.No.134, that a settlement patta was granted in his favour in respect of Ac.4.00 under Section 15(1) of the Act and that the settlement patta so granted was set aside in the revision petition. The said order was confirmed in a revision filed by the said T. Murali before the Commissioner of Appeals, and disposed of along with the revision filed by the District Collector, Chittoor, against the order granting settlement patta in favour of the petitioners. The said order was confirmed in a revision filed by the said T. Murali before the Commissioner of Appeals, and disposed of along with the revision filed by the District Collector, Chittoor, against the order granting settlement patta in favour of the petitioners. That T.Murali filed Writ Petition No.5572 of 2004 against the order dismissing his revision petition. This Court, by order dated 24.03.2004, granted interim direction to maintain status quo with respect to the lands in Sy.Nos.134 and 135. It is further averred that the settlement patta in favour of the petitioners was granted by one A.D.V. Reddy, the Settlement Officer and the State Government issued a memo in the year 1984 directing the Director of Settlements to cancel all the bogus pattas issued by the said A.D.V. Reddy and as the patta in favour of the petitioners was granted prior to the issuance of the said memo, the same was not set aside. As regards the land in Sy.No.136, it is the plea of respondent No.1 that the same is classified as ‘Kunta’ with reference to which this Court has granted status quo in Writ Petition No.5572 of 2004, that the land classified as Kunta is a water body and in view of several judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court emphasizing on the need for conservation of water bodies and prohibiting their conversion and reclassification, respondent No.1 is only trying to protect the water body. 5. That fact that the settlement patta granted in favour of the petitioners has attained finality is not in dispute. Though no material is filed in support of the averment relating to the order of status quo granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.5572 of 2004, granting that the said averment is correct, the said Writ Petition obviously related to Sy.No.134 and part of the land in Sy.No.135 as per respondent No.1’s own averments contained in para 6. However, in paras 9 and 10, respondent No.1 has referred to Sy.No.136 instead of Sy.No.135. The facts pleaded by respondent No.1 would go to show that a settlement patta was granted in favour of T. Murali over an extent of Ac.4.00 only in Sy.No.134 with reference to which further litigation ensued leading to filing of Writ Petition No.5572 of 2004 by the said T. Murali in which an order of status quo was stated to have been granted. 6. 6. It is therefore reasonable to conclude from the above facts that out of Ac.8.00 in Sy.No.134 dispute relating to Ac.4.00 is pending before this Court and to that extent there is an order of status quo. If at all there is any legal impediment for the respondents to implement the settlement patta, the same is confined to the said extent of Ac.4.00. The respondents cannot ignore the settlement patta for the balance land, namely; Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.134 and Ac.4.60 cents in Sy.No.136/1 by terming the same as bogus or treating the land in Sy.No.136/1 as water body. Respondent No.1 is obviously taking shelter under the plea of conservation of water body for non-implementation of the settlement patta, which was confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities and more significantly by this Court in Writ Petition No.16781 of 2008. The imperative need for conservation of water bodies need not be over emphasized. But the respondents cannot persist with their stand despite adjudication by the competent fora in favour of the petitioners. If the respondents genuinely feel that the settlement patta granted by the Settlement Officer was bogus one and all the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities and this Court in Writ Petition No.16781 of 2008 cannot be sustained in law, they ought to have pursued the litigation further by filing a letters patent appeal before a Division Bench and an SLP before the Supreme Court, if they were unsuccessful before the Division Bench. No reasons are forthcoming for their failure in this regard. The attitude displayed by the respondents reminds this Court of the Ostrich burying its head in the sand ignoring its surroundings. The respondents are exercising their powers and discharging their legal and constitutional obligations under the Constitution. It is not expected of respondent No.1 to raise a pleading, which falls foul of judicial adjudication. Such a tendency is subversive of rule of law and the basic jurisprudential principle that an order of the competent authority traceable to statutory or constitutional power cannot be ignored or defied howsoever much, such an order is not to the liking of the person, who is under the obligation to implement it. As noted above, even if the order confirming the settlement patta is erroneous in law, until the said order is set aside by a competent Court of law, it needs to be implemented. As noted above, even if the order confirming the settlement patta is erroneous in law, until the said order is set aside by a competent Court of law, it needs to be implemented. Respondent No.1 has obviously ignored this fundamental jurisprudential principle and taken a defiant stand implying that the purported erroneous decisions of the competent fora need not be implemented. Such a conduct on the part of the bureaucratic apparatus is abhorrent and attitude derisive. 7. Regrettably, at least after the Writ Petition has been filed, respondent No.1 has not realized his responsibility and doggedly tried to defend the indefensible act. Such an approach can by no means be appreciated much less endorsed by the constitutional Courts. 8. In the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms. 1) The respondents are directed to implement the settlement patta by mutating the name of the petitioners in the revenue record and issuing pattadar pass book and title deeds except to the extent of the land, which is covered by an order of status quo in Writ Petition No.5572 of 2004. 2) This order will not prevent the respondents from pursuing their further remedies against order dated 11.08.2008 in Writ Petition No.16781 of 2008 in accordance with law. 3) The mutation of the petitioners’ names in the revenue record and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds shall be subject to the orders, if any that may be passed by the competent Courts on the validity of the settlement patta, and 4) The respondents shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the petitioners to be handed over to petitioner No.1 on his and on behalf of other petitioners.