Judgment A. Gopal Reddy, J. 1. This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 07-06-2006 dismissing W.P.No.25265 of 2000 filed questioning the action of the respondents in placing the forest areas covered by Yerrangavaripalle village and the lands in Paimash No.120 to 139 of Penubalakala village of Chittoor District in Prohibitory Order Book register dated 03-06-1999 and 17-05-2000 as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 by incorporating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 2. The facts have been extensively dealt with by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. Therefore, it is unnecessary to reproduce the same except those which are relevant and they may, briefly, be stated as under. 3. Punganoor Zamin Estate was notified on 07-09-1950 and taken over by the Government on 22-07-1952 under the provisions of A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for brevity ‘the Act 26/1948’). On notifying and taking over of Zamin, a representation was made to the Government by the Zamindar stating that certain lands do not belong to Estate and are personal properties of Zamindar as the said lands are purchased by his ancestors more than 80 years before the date of abolition of the Estate. The Government accepted the claim of the Zamindar to the extent of forest areas of Yerranagavaripalle and the areas covered by Paimash No.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet of Peddakapalli. The Government after consultation with the Board of Revenue and with its concurrence issued G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 wherein it was noted that from out of the villages mentioned in the schedule to the petition of the Zamindar of Punganoor, three villages i.e. Annagaripalle, Bonthavaripalle and Bharanipalle had been taken over by the Government under the Act 26/1948 and the forests therein vested in the Government. With regard to the remaining 32 villages, the Government agreed with the views of the Board of Revenue and considered that the claim of the landholder was untenable in all cases except in respect of the forest areas of Yerranagavaripalle village those covered by Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala. With regard to the remaining 32 villages, the Government agreed with the views of the Board of Revenue and considered that the claim of the landholder was untenable in all cases except in respect of the forest areas of Yerranagavaripalle village those covered by Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala. The Government directed that all the forest areas situated in or near the 32 specified villages except the forests of Yerranagavaripalle and those covered by Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala will deemed to have been vested with the Government along with main Punganoor Zamindari with effect from 22-07-1952 (on which date the said Zamindari was taken over by the Government). The Director of Settlement was requested to include the forest revenue derived from all the forest areas referred to in the G.O. except the forests of Yerranagavaripalle village and Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet in the computation of the basic annual sum relating to Punganoor Zamin, if he had not already included it and to revise the advance compensation, if necessary. The Government also approved the proposal of the Board of Revenue regarding declaration of the forests and directed the officials to get the boundaries of the forests in all 32 villages aforesaid demarcated with the chains so that the survey staff can take up the survey of the areas with the least possible delay and complete it expeditiously and at the minimum cost. 4. At that stage Zamindar filed W.P.No.320 of 1957 to quash G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957. The Government filed a detailed counterin the said writ petition inter alia contending that the Settlement Officer, Chittoor conducted suo motu enquiry under Section 9 of Act 26/1948. It stated that in respect of all the 32 villages he held while the villages were estates within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 (for short “Estate Land Act”), they were not Inam estates within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act 26/1948, as they became estates by reason of the amending Act of 1936. Therefore, the villages though not inam estates are estates within the meaning of the Estate Land Act. Therefore, the villages though not inam estates are estates within the meaning of the Estate Land Act. Further, it is stated the suggestion that these villages were included in the list of the villages not taken over under the Act 26/1948 cannot militate against the fact that these village constitute estates within the meaning of Estate Land Act and have been expressly held so by the Settlement Officer. It is not correct to state that these villages were not treated as estates for purposes of Act 30/1947. In fact, notifications under Section 3(2) of the said Act (30/1947) were issued in respect of 23 villages out of 32 villages mentioned in the G.O. and for the balance no notification was issued, as there were not ryoti lands. In para-6 of the counter it was specifically pleaded that the forests being outside the limits of the Inam villages as confirmed by the Inam Commissioner do form part of the Zamindari of Punganur, which was notified under Section 1(4) of the Act 26/1948 and taken over with effect from 22-07-1952. By reason of Section 3(b) of the Act 26/1948 the forest which form part of the impartible Zamindari of Punganur stand transferred to and vest in the Government. In para-8 of the counter it was stated that the petitioner filed a petition before the Collector of Chittoor on 20-08-1952 stating that his predecessors-in-title purchased a number of whole inam villages situated within the ambit of the Zamindari of Punganur, that they had been declared not to be inam estates, that there are large tracts of trees of spontaneous growth in area appertaining to the said village, that he is entitled to such forest areas as successor-in-interests of his predecessors and requesting that suitable direction may be issued to the Estate officials and to the District Forest Officer not to interfere with his rights in the forests aforementioned. To the said petition schedule has been appended wherein the villages in question have been referred to. There are 12 villages in Avulapalli group and 5 villages in Suddaguntalapalli group and 6 villages in Gumkonda group. The other batch of 9 independent villages have also been included in the said schedule. Further, the villages of Annammagaripalli, Bontavaripalli and Beripalli were also included in that schedule. There are 12 villages in Avulapalli group and 5 villages in Suddaguntalapalli group and 6 villages in Gumkonda group. The other batch of 9 independent villages have also been included in the said schedule. Further, the villages of Annammagaripalli, Bontavaripalli and Beripalli were also included in that schedule. It was submitted that insofar as the last three villages were concerned, there has been a notification under the provisions of the Act 26/1948 and the said three villages were taken over. Therefore, the question of right to the forest lands in the said three villages is not open to challenge. As regards the other 32 villages, it was submitted that the village of Yerranagavaripalle and certain Paimash numbers in Penubalakala were excluded from G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957. As regards the other villages, it is stated that the matter was fully considered with reference to the available material including the relevant IFR extracts. It is stated that on a fair interpretation of the relevant extracts of the IFR relating to these villages, it will be found that the Zamindar claimed the forest lands exclusively and they were therefore, excluded from the area of the inam villages which were confirmed, and on the strength of which title deeds were duly given. It is the case of the Zamindar that the forests are independent of the inam villages and that he is the exclusive owner thereof. The matter was carefully examined by the Collector and Board of Revenue on the material available and after due consideration the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957, the objections contained in clauses (a) to (h) of para-6 are untenables. The said writ petition was dismissed holding that the question as to whether the land forms part of Estate must be decided on consideration of several documents and the same cannot be done within the limited scope of writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore it is just and equitable course from the point of view of all parties concerned would be to refer the aggrieved party to a suit wherein he could adduce all available evidence and there would be a judicial consideration of all evidence adduced and findings would be arrived at which in their turn could be canvassed, if necessary, in a court of appeal, if not in more than one court. Having regard to the fact that the said question cannot be satisfactorily disposed of in a writ petition, this court directed that the petitioner to see remedies, if any, in a properly constituted suit. Holding so this Court dismissed the writ petition on 12-02-1958. 5. On issuing declaration proposing to constitute the land with the boundaries specified in the schedule to the G.O. reserve forest under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act 1/1967”), one Sri A.Raja Reddy and 13 others requested the Settlement Officer to grant Ryotwari patta in their favour in an extent of Ac.27.55 cts. in Sy.No.210 and Ac.1605.70 cts. in Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli village. The Settlement Officer, Nellore conducted an enquiry under Section 11(a) of the Act 26/1948 and granted Ryotwari patta in favour of A.Raja Reddy and 13 others for an extent Ac.381.00 out of Ac.1605.70 cts. in Sy.No.211. He further held that the rest of the land be notified as “assessed waste” according to the existing classification in the village accounts. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, the respondent, Seshadri Naidu and others preferred R.P.No.94 of 1970 before the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad; whereas Sri A.Raja Reddy preferred R.P.No.42 of 1971. Aggrieved by the grant of patta in favour of A.Raja Reddy in respect of 381 acres the Collector preferred R.P.No.41 of 1972. While these revisions are pending adjudication, the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 4 of the Act 1/1967 issued G.O.Ms.No.1427, dated 29-03-1972 proposing to constitute the land within the boundaries specified in the schedule to the notification as a reserve forest and to appoint a Forest Settlement Officer to consider objections, if any, and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights, claimed by or alleged to exist in any of the persons in, or over, any land comprised within such limits or to any forests in such land and to deal with the same. 7. The petitioner and her sons themselves impleaded in R.P.No.94 of 1970 and batch stating that she and her sons were interested and that the matter had been proceeded without impleading them as parties, without notice to them and without their knowledge; therefore, she and others i.e. sons and daughters of Ex.-Zamindar have to be impleaded as parties. 7. The petitioner and her sons themselves impleaded in R.P.No.94 of 1970 and batch stating that she and her sons were interested and that the matter had been proceeded without impleading them as parties, without notice to them and without their knowledge; therefore, she and others i.e. sons and daughters of Ex.-Zamindar have to be impleaded as parties. The Director of Settlement clubbed all the above revision petitions and by a common order dated 08-04-1976 cancelled the patta granted by the Settlement Officer in respect of 381 acres in Sy.No.211 and directed to place them at the disposal of the Government. So far as the remaining land i.e. second set of lands he upheld the order of the Settlement Officer classifying them as ‘waste’. Meanwhile, the petitioner herein as an individual filed declaration under Section 8(1) A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “Land Reforms Act”) on 11-04-1975 excluding the lands in Yerranagavaripalle village and the land in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Madanapalle in C.C.No.883/PGN/75, dated 10-05-1976 held that since the declarant was an individual, she was entitled to hold one standard holding and since the total standard holding held by her was more than the ceiling area under Section 4(1) of the Land Reforms Act, it was determined under Section 9 of the Land Reforms Act that the declarant held 0.0534 standard holding of land in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date i.e. 01-01-1975. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Director of Settlements canceling the patta granted in favour of A.Raja Reddy holding that grant of patta by the Settlement Officer was based upon documents which were patently bogus and that the entire case bristled with shady deals and fabrications aimed at swallowing huge extents of Government land he (Raja Reddy) filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for stay of order of Director of Settlement. The Board by its order dated 24-05-1976 declined to grant stay. Against which Raja Reddy filed W.P.No.2075 of 1976. This Court by order dated 06-10-1976 dismissed the writ petition directing the Board of Revenue to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible. 9. The Board by its order dated 24-05-1976 declined to grant stay. Against which Raja Reddy filed W.P.No.2075 of 1976. This Court by order dated 06-10-1976 dismissed the writ petition directing the Board of Revenue to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible. 9. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad heard the revisions filed by Raja Reddy and others under Section 7(d) of the Act 26/1948 against the common order of the Director of Settlement, Hyderabad in R.P.No.94 of 1970 and batch dated 08-04-1976 confirming the order of the Director of Settlement. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner and her sons got themselves impleaded in R.P.No.94 of 1970 have not filed any further revision, but submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh. On receipt of said representation, the same was forwarded to Chief Conservator of Forests, who by letter dated 03-11-1982 informed the petitioner that the areas of Yerranagavaripalle village were not covered by reserve forest. 11. On dismissal of revision by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Raja Reddy filed W.P.No.8368 of 1982 which was allowed by this Court by order dated 28-12-1987 setting aside the order of the Commissioner passed in revision on 23-09-1982 and remanded the matter for consideration afresh. 12. During the pendency of the revision petition before the Commissioner, the Divisional Forest Officer by letter dated 15-07-1997 informed the Mandal Revenue Officer that as per the instructions of the Government in Memo dated 31-03-1997 and as instructed by the Government on 17-06-1997 the forest block of Avulapalle was notified under Section 4 of the Act 1/1967 vide G.O.Ms.No.1427 dated 29-03-1972 and the land in Avulapalle forest block included the land in Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli village. The M.R.O. was requested to enter the particulars in the Prohibitory Order Book. The District Collector vide proceedings dated 31-07-1997 requested the M.R.O. to enter the said lands in the Prohibitory Order Book of his Mandal and to intimate this fact directly to the Divisional Forest Officer (West) Chittoor under intimation to the Collector. Pursuant to remand, the Commissioner by order dated 22-06-1998 dismissed the revision petition filed by Raja Reddy and the same was communicated by proceedings dated 02-07-1998. Pursuant to remand, the Commissioner by order dated 22-06-1998 dismissed the revision petition filed by Raja Reddy and the same was communicated by proceedings dated 02-07-1998. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14-09-1998 to the Collector bringing to his notice that her right to forest areas must be deemed to have been recognized under Section 20(1) r/w Section 68 of the Act 26/1948 in G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 and as such the area has to be demarcated and the petitioner’s name to be included as its owner in the revenue records of the area. The petitioner requested that various areas in Yerranagavaripalle village though covered by Paimash Nos.120 to 139 lying in Pedda Panjani Revenue Mandal be demarcated and included in the revenue records of the respective villages as patta lands in the name of the petitioner, the legal heir of the Zamindar. 13. On receipt of endorsement dated 03-06-1999 from the Collector’s office notifying that the lands measuring an extent of 1274.70 cts. under survey number 211 cannot be mutated in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records as the land was in possession of the Forest Department and the same was recorded in Prohibitory Order Book, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for issuing a Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in placing the forest area covered by Yerranagavaripalle village and the lands in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala village of Chittoor District in Prohibitory Order Book register dated 03-06-1999 and 17-05-2000 as illegal, ultravires opposed to the provisions of Act 26/1948 and violative of principles of natural justice and to direct the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 by incorporating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records of lands covered by Yerranagavaripalle village and the lands covered by Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala village of Chittoor District. 14. The 2nd respondent—District Collector filed a counter on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 stating that an extent of Ac.1605.07 cts. in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 co-related Sy.Nos.211 of Penubalakala village is covered by forest and the Government is in possession all these lands and the lands have been shown as ‘waste’ in revenue records. 14. The 2nd respondent—District Collector filed a counter on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 stating that an extent of Ac.1605.07 cts. in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 co-related Sy.Nos.211 of Penubalakala village is covered by forest and the Government is in possession all these lands and the lands have been shown as ‘waste’ in revenue records. By virtue of Section (b) of the Act 26/1948 the entire estate including minor inams post settlement or pre-settlement included in the assets of the Zamindari Estate at the permanent settlement of the Estate, all communal lands and porambokes other non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, lanka lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances. On the representation made by the erstwhile Zamindar to the Government on 20-08-1956 to recognize him as the owner of the forest areas situated in 35 villages on the ground that the said lands had been purchased by predecessors-in-title about 80 years ago, the Government on consideration of the said representation issued G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 declaring that the forest areas situated in or near 32 villages specified in the said G.O. have been vested in the Government except the forests of Yerranagavaripalle and those covered by Paimash Nos.120 to139 of Penubalakala with a direction to the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh to include the forest revenue derived from all the forests areas referred to above except the forests of Yerranagavaripalle and the Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala in the computation of the basic annual sum relating to Punganoor Zamine estate if he has not already included it and to revise the advance compensation if necessary. Questioning the same the Ex-Zamindar filed W.P.No.320 of 1957 in which the Government filed a detailed counter. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the Ex-Zamindar to seek his remedies in a properly constituted suit. The said judgment has become final. On failure to file a suit as directed in the writ petition, the petitioner’s rights, if any, are perished by Section 27 of Limitation Act, as the suit schedule lands, admittedly, are forest land full of shrub growth and trees and the remaining land throughout as non-ryoti. The huge extent of forest land was never in cultivation either in pre-abolition or post-abolition period. The huge extent of forest land was never in cultivation either in pre-abolition or post-abolition period. The petitioner having admitted that it is a forest land cannot claim patta for the same. The land stands transferred and vested in the name of Government free from all encumbrances. The rights of the petitioner, if any, extinguished by virtue of Section 3(b) of the Act 26/1948. As the suit land is forest land and not cultivated by anybody, the District Forest Officer (West) submitted a report to the Collector, Chittoor vide reference DM3631/95, dated 15-07-1997 requesting the latter to enter the said Sy.No.211 in Prohibitory Order Book Register. Accordingly, the Collector issued instructions to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapanjani to enter the suit lands in Prohibitory Order Book Register vide reference No.B9/1791/97, dated 31-07-1997 and also reply to the averments made in the writ petition in detail which are not relevant. 15. The 4th respondent filed a separate counter stating that joint inspection has been undertaken by a team consisting of Forest officials and Revenue officials in respect of the area covered under Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli which are claimed to be the personal property of the writ petitioner. On the basis of joint inspection the boundaries of the reserve forest area have been fixed from survey station Nos.143 to 114 and the said survey revealed that the lands claimed by the writ petition are falling mostly inside reserve forest to the extent of 1175 acres except for a small extent 100 acres falling outside reserve forest and the map is enclosed to the counter. 16. A reply has been filed by the writ petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. 17. Sri Challa Sitaramaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted written submissions. In the written submissions he gave a brief introduction of Zamindari system as under: “Zamindar literally means land holder. The system of Zamindari was brought about by the Mohammadan rulers. In the eyes of ruler he as no more than a Collector of Revenue. The area was fixed, the demand for the revenue depended on the necessity of the government. To avoid this it was suggested that there should be a permanent settlement with the Zamindar. Hence in 1802 the permanent settlement regulation was passed. The effect of the regulation was to convert the precarious tenure of the Zamindaris into a permanent one. The area was fixed, the demand for the revenue depended on the necessity of the government. To avoid this it was suggested that there should be a permanent settlement with the Zamindar. Hence in 1802 the permanent settlement regulation was passed. The effect of the regulation was to convert the precarious tenure of the Zamindaris into a permanent one. It gave the Zamindaris a right to hold their estates on a fixed peshkush with heritability. Peshkush means a fixed assessment of revenue payable by the Zamindar to the Government to all the lands granted under the Sanad. Under clause 2 of the Regulation 1802 the proprietary right of the soil became vested in the Zamindar. Under clause 3 of the regulation a deed of permanent proprietary right was granted to the Zamindar and a permanent assessment of revenue was fixed. Zamindar could also own lands, not falling within the grant of the permanent settlement regulation 1802, lands not granted by the government. It was on the strength of the sovereign power the grant was made, the same sovereign power can take over or cancel the grant. When it was cancelled that which was ranted by the government would revert to the government. It was on the strength of the sovereign power the grants were revoked by Act 26/1948. The Andhra Pradesh Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act). Whatever was granted under the sanad reverted to the Government. The lands owned by the Zamindar outside the grant will continue to be the Zamindar’s personal property. Consequences of notification: The first aspect:- On the notification by the government under Act 26/1948 all the assets, all the lands granted under the sanad including the communal lands, Porambokes and non Ryoti Lands Mines, Forests vest in the Government. All enactments applicable to the ryotwari settlement apply to the estate, because the Zamindari is converted to Ryotwari settlement. As the Ryotwari settlement was introduced by Act 26/1948 in occupation of ryoti land as defined in section 3(16) of the Estates Land Act and the land holder in occupation of private land as defined in Section 3(10) of the Estates Land Act would not be disturbed until the claim is determined by the prescribed authority under the Act 26/1948. The claim by the land holder, Zamindar or the ryot is only in respect of the lands granted under the sanad. The claim by the land holder, Zamindar or the ryot is only in respect of the lands granted under the sanad. Section 11 of the Act 26/1948 deals with ryot, sections 12, 13, 14 deal with the Land holder of different types of Estates Zamindari, Inam Estate, under tenure. Section 5 empowers the Settlement Officer to examine the nature and history of the tenures of all lands claimed by the land holder. The claim by the landholder under the Act to his private land is within the grant under the permanent settlement and not to the lands which the Zamindar owns outside the grant. If a claim is made to ownership of a land by the Zamindar, stating that it was not within the grant and the land does not vest in the government, the Board of Revenue is empowered to deal this question under Section 7 of the Act 26/1948.” In the written submissions, he furnished the list of dates and submitted that Punganoor Estate was abolished by issuing notification dated 27-02-1952 under Section 1(4) of the Act 26/1948. The consequences of the notification have been dealt with by the learned single Judge in paras-33 to 39 of the judgment. Consequent to the abolition, the Zamindar is entitled to compensation and the amount of compensation has to be determined as per Sections 24 to 26 of the Act 26/1948. A representation was made to the Government on 20-8-1952 claiming ownership over forest areas in several villages stating that the area was in their enjoyment attaching ‘A’ schedule to the petition. On such representation, the Board of Revenue enquired into the matter and accepted the claim in respect of Yerranagavaripalle and Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala village forests. The Government having accepted the view of the Board of Revenue issued G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 stating that all forest villages mentioned in the IV groups except forests in Yerranagavaripalle and Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala deemed to be vested in the Government along with the Punganoor Zamindar with effect from 27-02-1952, accepting the plea the petitioner as the owner and is in enjoyment of the said forest. Learned senior counsel argued that once the title to these lands is accepted by the Government, no further adjudication is necessary to declare the title of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel argued that once the title to these lands is accepted by the Government, no further adjudication is necessary to declare the title of the petitioner. Further, the Government directed the Director of Settlements to include the forest revenue of all the forests except the forest in Yerranagavaripalle and Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala in the computation of the basic annual sum with a direction to the Forest Department to demarcate the boundaries. By G.O.Ms.No.1427 a declaration was notified that it was proposed to constitute reserve forest, calling objections under Section 4 of the Act 1/1967. In the said notification it was stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 demarcation was carried out excluding Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli village from station number 127 to 159, Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala village are Sy.No.210 in an extent of Ac.27.05 and Sy.No.211 in an extent of Ac.1605.70 cts. The Chief Conservator of forests in his reference No.18765/80/J5, dated 03-11-1982 stated that area of Yerranagavaripalle was not covered by reserve forest. If that is the case, Divisional Forest Officer addressing a letter dated 15-07-1997 to the Mandal Revenue Officer stating that Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli was notified under Section 4 of Act 1/1967 in G.O.Ms.No.1427, dated 29-09-1972 and it should be noted in the Prohibitory Order Book of the Mandal under Section 4 of the Act 1/1967 is not correct. Therefore, the letter of District Collector dated 31-07-1997 directing the present MRO giving a list of forest blocks including Peddakapalli Sy.No.211 notified under Section 4 of the Act 1/1967 requesting him to enter in the Prohibitory Order Book is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1427. Once the nature of land is concluded by G.O.Ms.No.439 and declaration made by the forest department in G.O.Ms.No.1427, the decision of the Commissioner on the claim of Raja Reddy and 13 others for grant of Ryotwari patta dated 22-06-1998 which has been admitted in the counter filed by respondents 1 to 3 in para-6, it cannot be included in Prohibitory Order Book. On disallowing the claim of the petitioner for grant of patta, a representation was made to the District Collector on 14-09-1998 tracing out the entire history of the case. On disallowing the claim of the petitioner for grant of patta, a representation was made to the District Collector on 14-09-1998 tracing out the entire history of the case. When the R.D.O., Madanapalli wrote to the District Collector to implement G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 to reject the request of the petitioner and the Collector writing letter to the petitioner on 03-06-1999 that the request of the petitioner for grant of Ryotwari patta is not possible is erroneous. What the petitioner claiming is only to implement G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 recognizing the ownership and right of the petitioner in revenue records. Therefore, the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition and the same has to be allowed. 18. Per contra, learned Advocate General sustained the order of the learned single Judge contending that the procedure followed by the District Collector as well as the Board of Revenue was not as contemplated under the provisions of the Act 26/1948. Therefore, the very issuance of notification dated 13-03-1957 is contrary to the provisions of the Act 26/1948. Further, once the Settlement Officer directed that the lands to be classified as “assessed waste” according to the existing classification in the village accounts and the said order has been confirmed in revision and the same has attained finality. The Settlement Officer has taken the classification reflected in the village accounts. The Estates Abolition Act is a self-contained code, which deals with the estates taken over by the Government on issuing the notification consequently the estate vests with the State Government including the assets of the Zamindari Estate stood transferred to the Government and vested in it free from all encumbrances. The land holder has to make an application before the Settlement Officer in accordance with the procedure laid down under Sections 12, 13, and 14 of the Act 26/1948 and if the said land is forest land, in accordance with Section 63 of the said Act. Even if it is admitted that the lands are the personal property of the Zamindar, there is an obligation on the part of the Zamindar to approach the Settlement Officer. Even if it is admitted that the lands are the personal property of the Zamindar, there is an obligation on the part of the Zamindar to approach the Settlement Officer. The petitioner kept quiet from 1957 without making any attempt to claim to implement the G.O. and the lands are her personal property and to effect mutation in revenue records and only after the proceedings initiated by A.Raja Reddy and 13 others before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records are concluded she made a claim over the property, the same is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches. He also drawn our attention to the findings recorded by the learned single Judge for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. 19. Before we answer the rival submissions, the relevant statutory provisions of the Act 26/1948 and other provisions applicable to the case on hand, which were exhaustively referred to by the learned single Judge in paras-30 to 52, which are relevant for disposal of appeal are briefly stated as under: 20. Section 2 (3) of the Act 26/1948 defines "Estate" to mean a Zamindari or an under-tenure or an Inam estate. Section 2 (6) defines "Impartible estate” to mean the estate governed immediately before the notified date, by the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904. Section 2 (7) defines "Inam estate" to mean an estate within the meaning of Section 3 clause (2) (d) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 (A.P. Act 1 of 1908). 21. Section 2 (6) defines "Impartible estate” to mean the estate governed immediately before the notified date, by the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904. Section 2 (7) defines "Inam estate" to mean an estate within the meaning of Section 3 clause (2) (d) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 (A.P. Act 1 of 1908). 21. Section 3 of the Act 26/1948 deals with the consequences of Notification of estate, which reads thus: “With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act (a) x x xx (b) the entire estate (including minor inams (Post-settlement or pre-settlement) included in the assets of the zamindari estate at the permanent settlement of that estate; all communal lands and porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands; lanka lands; forests; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; tanks and irrigation works; fisheries; and ferries), shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances; and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Irrigation Cess Act, 1865 and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate; (c) x x x x (d) x x x x (e) the principal or any other landholder and any other person whose rights stand transferred under clause (b) or cease and determine under clause (c), shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in this Act.” 22. Section 12 of the Act 26/1948 deals with land of a Zamindari estate in which the landholder is entitled to Ryotwari patta which reads thus: “In the case of the zamindari estate, the landholder shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of (a) all lands (including lanka lands) which, immediately before the notified date, (i) belonged to him as private land within the meaning of Section 3, clause (10) (a), of the Estates Land Act, or (ii) stood recorded as his private land in a record prepared under the provisions of Chapter XI or Chapter XII of the said Act, not having been subsequently converted into ryoti land; (b) (i) all lands which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder, by inheritance or succession under a will, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry from the date of such acquisition or the 1st day of July 1939, whichever is later and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from such later date; (ii) all lands which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, but not including purchase at a sale for arrears of rent, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date; (iii) all lands (not being (i) lanka lands, (ii) lands of the description specified in Section 3, clause (16), sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act, of (iii) forest lands) which have been abandoned or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the occupation of a ryot, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July 1939, and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date. Explanation:- "Cultivate" in this clause includes the planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards, but does not include the rearing of topes of spontaneous growth.” 23. Section 15 of the Act 26/1948 relates to determination of lands in which the landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta, which reads thus: “(1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta under Section 12, 13 or 14, as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed. (2) Any person deeming himself aggrieved by a decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-section (1) may within two months from the date of the decision or such further time as the Tribunal may in its discretion allow, appeal to the Tribunal; and its decision shall be final and not be liable to be questioned in any Court of Law.” 24. Section 63 of the Act 26/1948 relates to decision of questions regarding forests, which reads as under: “If any question arises whether any land in an estate is a forest or is situated in a forest, or as to the limits of a forest, it shall be determined by the Settlement Officer, subject to an appeal to the Director within such time as may be prescribed and also to revision by the Board of Revenue. 25. 25. Section 3(2) of the Estate Land Act defines “Estate” to mean:- (a) Any permanently-settled estate or temporarily settled Zamindari: (b) Any portion of such permanently-settled estate or temporarily settled Zamindari which is separately registered in the office of the Collector: (c) Any unsettled palaiyam or jagir; (d) (i) any inam village, or (ii) any hamlet or khandriga in an inam village, of which the grant as an inam has been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, such village, hamlet or khandriga has been partitioned among the grantees, or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees; Explanation 1:(1) Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village, hamlet or khandriga in an inam village the area which forms the subject-matter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village hamlet or khandriga of that name which have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes. Explanation (1-A):-An inam village, hamlet or khandriga in an inam village granted in inam, shall be deemed to be an estate, even though it was confirmed or recognized on different dates, or by different title deeds or in favour of different persons. Explanation (1-B):If any hamlet or Khandriga granted as inam ws at any time designated as an inam village or as a part thereof in the Revenue accounts, it shall for purposes of item (ii) of sub-clause (d) be treated as being a hamlet or khandriga of an inam village, notwithstanding that subsequently it has come to be designated in the Revenue accounts as a Ryotwari or Zamindari village or part thereof. Explanation (2):Where an inam village is resumed by the Government, it shall cease to be an estate, but if any village so resumed is subsequently regranted by the government as an inam, it shall from the date of such regrant, be regarded as an estate. Explanation (3):Where a portion of an inam village is resumed by the Government, such portion shall cease to be part of the estate, but the rest of the village shall e deemed to be an inam village for the purposes of this sub-clause. Explanation (3):Where a portion of an inam village is resumed by the Government, such portion shall cease to be part of the estate, but the rest of the village shall e deemed to be an inam village for the purposes of this sub-clause. If the portion so resumed or any part thereof is subsequently regranted by Government as an inam, such portion or part shall from the date of such regrant, be regarded as forming part of the inam village for the purpose of this sub-clause; (a) any portion consisting of one or more villages of any of the estates specified above in clauses (a), (b) and (c) which is held on a permanent under-tenure. 26. 26. Section 3(10) of the Estate Land Act defines ‘private land” to mean: (a) in the case of an estate within the meaning of sub-clauses (a)(b) (c) or (e) of clause (2) means the domain or home-farm land of the landholder by whatever designation known such as, Kambattam, Khas, sir, or pannai and includes all land which is proved to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the commencement of this Act, and (b) in the case of an estate within the meaning of sub-clause (d) of clause (2) means: (i) the domain or home-farm landholder, by whatever designation known, such kambattam, khas, sir or pannai or (ii) land which is proved to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, within his own or hired stock, of for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the first day of July, 1908, provided that the landholder has retained the Kudivaram ever since and had not converted the land into ryoti land; or (iii) land which is provided to have been cultivated by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the first day of November, 1933, provided that the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land; or (iv) land the entire kudivaram in which was acquired by the landholder before the first day of November, 1933 for valuable consideration from a person owning the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land, and provided further that, where the kudivaram was acquired at a sale for arrears of rent, the land shall not be deemed to be private and unless it is proved to have been cultivated by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years since the acquired of the land and before the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. 27. 27. Section 3(16) of the Estate Land Act defines “Ryoti Land” to mean cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include— (a) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage surplus or irrigation channels; (b) threshing floor, cattle-sands, village-sites, and other lands situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers; land granted on service tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates of rent if granted before the passing of this Act or free of rent if granted after that date, so long as the service tenure subsists. 28. The definition of “private land” appearing in Section 3(10) of Estate Land Act, referred to above, would show that either it should be home- farm land or cultivated as private land by the landholder either by himself or by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before 01-07-1908 provided that the landholder has retained the Kudivaram or cultivated by the landholder himself by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock immediately before the 01-11-1933 provided that the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land or land the entire kudivaram in which was acquired by the landholder before the 1-11-1933 for valuable consideration from a person owning the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land and provided further that where the kudivaram was acquired at a sale for arrears of rent the land shall not be deemed to be private and unless it is proved to have been cultivated by the landholder himself by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired for a continuous period of twelve years since acquisition of the land and before the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. 29. In PERIANNAN v. A.S.AMMAN KOVIL AIR 1952 MADRAS 323 (FB) as well as CHIDAMBRAM v. SANTANARAMASWAMI AIR 1968 SC 1005 the Supreme Court after referring to the definition of ‘private land’ under Section 3(10) of the Estate Land Act observed as under: “….Under Section 3(10) of the Act, private land comprises of two categories: private lands technically so- called and lands deemed to be private lands. In regard to private lands technically so-called, it must be the domain or home-farm land of the landholder as understood in law. The mere fact that particular lands are described in popular parlance as pannai, kambhattam, sir, khas, is not decisive of the question unless the lands so-called partake of the characteristics of domain or home-farm lands.” 30. The Supreme Court in CHIDAMBARAM’s case (2 supra) after referring to the test laid down by the Privy Council in YERLAGADDA MALLIKARJUNA PRASAD NAYUDU v. SOMAYYA AIR 1918 PC 182 observed as under: “……The Legislature did not use the words ‘domain or home-farm land’ without attaching to them a meaning, and it is reasonable to suppose that the legislature would attach to these words the meaning which would be given to them in ordinary English. It seems to us that the sub-clause (b)(i) of the definition is intended to cover those lands which come obviously within what would ordinarily be recognised as the domain or home-farm, that is to say, lands appurtenant to the landholder’s residence and kept for his enjoyment and use. The home-farm is land which the landlord cultivates himself, as distinct from land which he lets out to tenants to be farmed. The first clause is, therefore, meant to include and signify those lands which are in the ordinary sense of the word home-farm lands.” The Supreme Court further observed as under: “…The other clauses of the definition appear to deal with those lands which would not necessarily be regarded as home farm lands in the ordinary usage of the term; and with reference to those lands there is a proviso that lands purchased at a sale for arrears of revenue shall not be regarded as private lands unless cultivated directly by the landlord for the required period. It seems to us that the definition read as a whole indicates clearly that the ordinary test for ‘private land’ is the test of retention by the landholder for his personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal supervision. It seems to us that the definition read as a whole indicates clearly that the ordinary test for ‘private land’ is the test of retention by the landholder for his personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal supervision. No doubt, such lands may be let on short leases for the convenience of the landholder without losing their distinctive character; but it is not the intention or the scheme of the Act to treat as private those lands with reference to which the only peculiarity is the fact that the landlord owns both the varams in the lands and has been letting them out on short term leases. There must, in our opinion, be something in the evidence either by way of proof of direct cultivation or by some clear indication of an intent to regard these lands as retained for the personal use of the landholder and his establishment in order to place those lands in the special category of private lands in which a tenant under the Act cannot acquire occupancy rights.” 31. As per Section 3(b) of the Act 26/1948 with effect on and from notified date the entire estate including all communal lands and porambokes, other non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, lanka lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. On issuance of notification the Government shall not dispossess the principal or any other landholder and any other person whose rights stand transferred shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in the Act 26/1948. 32. Section 12 of the Act 26/1948 deals with lands of Zamindari estate in which the landholder is entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all lands (including lanka lands) which, immediately before the notified date, (i) belonged to him as private land within the meaning of Section 3 (10) (a) of the Estate Land Act or (ii) stood recorded as his private land in a record prepared under the provisions of Chapter XI or Chapter XII of the said Act not having been subsequently converted into ryoti land. As per Section 12(b) (iii) all lands not being (i) lanka lands, (ii) lands of the description specified in Section 3 clause (16), sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act or (iii) forest lands which have been abandoned or relinquished by a ryot or which have never been in the occupation of a ryot, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandry from the 01-07-1939 and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date. The word ‘cultivation’ has been defined in the explanation to Section 12(b) to mean: includes the planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards, but does not include the rearing of topes of spontaneous growth. 33. It is manifestly clear from Section 12 (b)(iii) of Act 26/1948 in the case of Zamindari Estate, the landholder shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to Ryotwari patta of all lands belonged to him as private land within the meaning of Section 3(10)(a) of Estate Land Act not being forestlands. On issuing notification, all forest lands vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Further, as per Section 185 of the Estate Land Act presumption can be drawn that land in the inam village is not private land. 34. The Supreme Court in T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD v. UNION OF INDIA (1997) 2 SCC 267 held the word “forest” must be understood to cover all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise, that the term “forest land” would not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government records irrespective of ownership. The Supreme Court further held that, for the conservation of forests and matters connected therewith, the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, would apply to all forests so understood irrespective of ownership or classification thereof. 35. The petitioner’s contention is that forest lands in Yerranagavaripalle village and the land in Paimash No.120 to 139 of Penubalakala village of Chittoor District are private lands and on abolition of estate, the Government in calculating the compensation have not taken into account all these lands. 35. The petitioner’s contention is that forest lands in Yerranagavaripalle village and the land in Paimash No.120 to 139 of Penubalakala village of Chittoor District are private lands and on abolition of estate, the Government in calculating the compensation have not taken into account all these lands. As the lands are not notified under Section 4 of the Act 1/1967, the respondents cannot claim the lands in Yerranagavaripalle and lands in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala village are forest lands. The lands claimed by the petitioner are under the control of Forest Department as per the letter of RDO dated 16-04-1999 to deprive her property without paying compensation. Learned single Judge in para-56 of the judgment held if the petitioner’s contention that the lands in Yerranagavaripalle village and the lands in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet are her personal property and do not form part of the Estate were to merit acceptance, it cannot be said that even for these lands, an application for grant of Ryotwari patta should be made and Ryotwari pattas obtained. Laying much emphasis on the above observation of the learned single Judge, the learned senior counsel contended that the landlord is not under obligation to make an application for grant of Ryotwari patta, as they are private lands as recognised in G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-957. 36. We rather find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel. The ordinary test for “private land” as observed by the Supreme Court is the test of retention by the landholder for his personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal supervision. In the absence of any evidence either by way of proof of direct cultivation or by some clear indication of intent that the said lands are retained for the personal use of the landholder and his establishment in order to place those lands in the special category of private lands, petitioner cannot claim it as a private personal property. Section 12 of the Act 26/1948 postulates obtaining Ryotwari patta where the land belongs to him as “private land” under Section 3(10) of the Estate Land Act. 37. Section 12 of the Act 26/1948 postulates obtaining Ryotwari patta where the land belongs to him as “private land” under Section 3(10) of the Estate Land Act. 37. In view of the same, only on making such application by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act 26/1948 for grant of Ryotwari patta, the Settlement Officer can decide whether the land falls under the definition “private land” in which the petitioner is entitled to Ryotwari patta or stood transferred to the Government free from all encumbrances, in view of the fact that the entire land is covered by forest. In the absence of obtaining Ryotwari patta to the lands, petitioner cannot claim any right under the guise of G.O.Ns.No.439, dated 13-03-1957. 38. We are fortified our view from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.1384 of 1968 and batch wherein speaking for the Bench Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote (as he then was) held under Section 12(a) of the Act 26/1948 in the case of a Zamindari estate the landholder is entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all lands which immediately before the notified date belonged to him as private land within the meaning of Section 3 (10)(a) of Estate Land Act and after referring to the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in PERIANNAN’s case (1 supra) and Supreme Court in CHIDAMBARAM’s case (2 supra) wherein the Supreme Court accepted if the land falls within the purview of Section 3(1) of the Estate Land Act, the landholder can validly claim patta under Section 12(a) of the Act 26/1948. When the petitioner filed W.P.No.320 of 1957 questioning G.O.Ms.No.439, it is the specific stand of the Government that the forests being outside the limits of the Inam villages as confirmed by the Inam Commissioner do form a part of the Zamindari of Punganur which was notified under Section 1(4) of the Act 26/1948 and by reason of Section 3(b) of the Act 26/1948 the forest which form part of the Impartible Zamindari of Punganur stand transferred to and vest in the Government. It is also admitted that the lands are in possession of the Forest Department ever since the notification. Further, the petitioner and her sons impleaded in R.P.Nos.94 of 1970 and batch which is the subject matter of granting pattas in favour of Raja Reddy and 13 others. It is also admitted that the lands are in possession of the Forest Department ever since the notification. Further, the petitioner and her sons impleaded in R.P.Nos.94 of 1970 and batch which is the subject matter of granting pattas in favour of Raja Reddy and 13 others. All the revision petitions were disposed by a common order dated 08-04-1976 cancelling the patta granted by the Settlement Officer in respect of 381 acres in Sy.No.211 and directed to place them at the disposal of the Government. The remaining land i.e. second set of lands he upheld the order of the Settlement Officer classifying them as “waste”. The petitioner having failed to obtain any patta or claiming rights in the properties filed declaration under Section 8(1) of Land Reforms Act and not included the lands in Yerranagavaripalle village and the land in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala in his declaration. W.P.No.320 of 1957 filed by the petitioner was dismissed where the stand of the Government is that the forest land stand transferred and vest in the Government on notifying the estate. By mere making of a representation on 14-09-1998 to the Government after a long lapse of 40 years from the date of disposal of writ petition that her right to forest areas must be deemed to have been recognized under Section 20(1) r/w Section 68 of Act 26/1948 in G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13-03-1957 and the area has to be demarcated and her name to be included as owner in the revenue records, petitioner cannot revive stale claim which stood extinguished. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief on the ground of laches also. Once the Court already dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to agitate the rights, if any, in a properly constituted civil suit, petitioner having failed to avail the same cannot reopen the abandoned claim by making a representation. 39. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.