ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of 2nd respondent/District Collector, Chittoor in granting Ryotwari Patta as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.298 Revenue (JA), Department, 28.04.2001 confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014 read with Govt. Memo No.4442/EA & AR (JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct 2nd respondent to forthwith grant Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.Nos.84/6; 85/1 and 86/1 i.e., for an extent of Ac.0.62 cents; Ac.3.16 cents and Ac.0.96 cents respectively, situated in Akkarampalli Village Accounts, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, as per the orders issued by the Respondent No.1/Government in G.O.Ms.No.298, Revenue (JA) Department, dated 28.04.2001 confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014 read with Govt. Memo No.4442/EA & AR (JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018 and further direct 4th Respondent to mutate the name of petitioner in revenue records and granting Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds in respect of the said land and with all other consequential benefits and pass such other order.” 2. The case of petitioner in brief is that, the petitioner is resident of Akkarampalli, which is an Inam village, notified and taken over by the Government in the year 1961, under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition &Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 which will herein after be called as (the Act). The petitioner along with his mother Kanchi Venkata Subbamma and his elder brother Kanchi Muni Krishna Reddy filed claim petition for grant of Ryotwari Patta for an extent of Ac.6.86 cents under proviso to Section 11 of the said Act 26/1948. The Principal Secretary to Government, the 1st respondent, who has inspected the said land found that an extent of Ac.4.74 cents is vacant and the remaining land is under occupation by third parties and therefore, the 1st respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.298, Rev.(JA) Dept., dated 28.04.2021, in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Section 11 of the (Act of 1948), according permission to respondent No.2/District Collector, Chittoor, to grant Ryotwari Patta, in favour of claimants, for the said extent of Ac.4.74 cents of land in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1. The operative portion of the said G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 reads as under: “11. The operative portion of the said G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 reads as under: “11. In the circumstances stated in the foregoing paras, the Government hereby accord permission to allot Ryotwari Patta to an extent of land Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1 i.e., Ac.0.62 cents, Ac.3.16 cents and Ac.0.96 cents respectively, situated in Akkarampalli Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor District under the proviso of Sec.11 of Subbamma, Sri K.Muni Krishna Reddy and Sri K.Lokanandha Reddy, residents of Akkarampalli village. 12. The Collector, Chittoor is requested to take action accordingly.” 3. The 2nd respondent/District Collector, Chittoor appears to have mislead 1st respondent/Government to keep in abeyance, the said orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001, till disposal of W.P.No.4393 of 1998 filed by the petitioner along with his mother and elder brother. Unfortunately, the Government vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002-5, dated 27.02.2003, kept in abeyance, the said orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2020 till disposal of W.P.No.4293 of 1998. 4. This Court by Judgment, dated 07.08.2007 allowed W.P.No.4293 of 1998 and set aside Govt. Memo No.247/JA.2/81- 2, dated 27.01.1998 and directed the Government to pass speaking orders in the Revision Petition filed by them. Unfortunately, the Government did not comply with the said order, dated 07.08.2007 and kept the matter pending. Thereupon, the petitioner, his mother and his elder brother filed another W.P.No.6749 of 2012 with a request to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent/District Collector to grant Ryotwari Patta, in respect of the said land, as per the said G.O, dated 28.04.2001. This Court by order, dated 20.06.2012 was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition with a direction to the Government to decide revision petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. 5. In pursuance of the order, dated 20.06.2012 in W.P.No.6749 of 2012, the Government by Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014, passed speaking order confirming the earlier order issued in G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 and once again requested the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Chittoor to grant Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner for the said land admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.74 cents and the relevant direction is extracted hereunder for better appreciation: “11. Therefore, Government hereby confirmed the orders passed in the reference 1st cited ordering for grant of Ryotwari Patta to the land to an extent of Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1 situated in Akkarampalli Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor District in favour of Smt.Kanchi Venkata Subbamma, Sri K.Muni Krishna Reddy and Sri K.Lokanadha Reddy, R/o Akkarampalli Village, duly withdrawing the orders passed in the Memo 2nd cited. 12. The Collector, Chittoor is requested to take necessary further action in the matter accordingly.” 6. The claimants have submitted several representations to the District Collector and Joint Collector, Chittoor to grant Ryotwari Patta at the earliest, as per the said orders issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 confirmed vide Govt. Memo, dated 16.05.2014 earnestly requesting that his mother was 85 years old and was eagerly waiting for implementation of the said G.O, dated 28.04.2001 to fulfill her desire giving her share in the said property to the petitioner, not only because the petitioner looked after her at her old age, but also because the petitioner pursued the matter and met the entire expenditure for this long litigation with mighty Government. Unfortunately, 2nd respondent/District Collector, Chittoor, by letter Roc.No.F1/15681/95, dated 17.11.2017, once again misled the Government and requested to review the orders issued in the said Government Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014, with an intention to protract grant of Ryotwari Patta. 7. The 1st respondent/Government by Memo No.4442/EA & AR (JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018 rejected the said request of 2nd respondent/District Collector, and once again requested 2nd respondent/District Collector to implement the orders already issued by Government in the said Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014. In the meanwhile, the petitioner’s mother died on 11.01.2018. During her life time, the petitioner’s mother Smt.Kanchi Venkata Subbamma executed a registered Will, dated 11.12.2014 in favour of the petitioner bequeathing her share of the said landed property. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another representation, dated 02.04.2018 to the 3rd respondent/Joint Collector, Chittoor, requesting to implement the order issued by the Government in the G.O.Ms.No.398, dated 28.04.2001 confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 15.03.2018, but to the misfortune, till date, no action is taken by the 2nd respondent. On account of delay in granting Ryotwari Patta more than Ac.2.00 cents of land out of total extent of Ac.6.86 cents, was already occupied by unsocial elements. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 15.03.2018, but to the misfortune, till date, no action is taken by the 2nd respondent. On account of delay in granting Ryotwari Patta more than Ac.2.00 cents of land out of total extent of Ac.6.86 cents, was already occupied by unsocial elements. In spite of granting decree in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court, he is unable to recover possession of the said land, for want of Ryotwari Patta, in respect of the ancestral property and the petitioner requested to issue a direction as stated above. 8. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit along with the stay application admitting entire proceedings while denying the malafides attributed to the 3rd respondent. It is specifically contended that Sri Kanchi Ramaiah, S/o Krishna Reddy has filed a petition before the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 proviso of EA Act, 1948 for the land shown in the following table:- Village S.No. Extent Acs. Classification Akkarampalle 84-6 0.62 AWD 85-1 3-16 AWD 105-2 0-07 AWD 105-13 0-28 AWD 105-7 0-36 AWD 105-5 0.16 AWD 9. The claim petition was taken on the file of S.R.No.5/11(Pro)/63 CGR by the then A.S.O, Chittoor. He has submitted proposals to the Board of Revenue through the District Collector, Chittoor. The Board of Revenue vide orders i.e., BPRT.No.1609/65, dated 06.05.1965 has rejected the claims of the claimants as detailed below: “The conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.160, Revenue, dated 18.01.1950 have been satisfied. In these circumstances the Board, in exercise of the powers delegated to it in the said G.O under the provisions of Sec.11 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, (XXVI) of 1948, directs that ryotwari patta need not be issued to the assignees mentioned in the statement in respect of the lands described therein.” 10. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision petition was filed before the Government i.e., Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and that was also rejected vide Govt. Memo No.2840/79-1, dated 12.03.1980, on the ground that the revision cannot be entertained under Section 11 (PRO) of E.A. Act. Aggrieved by the said order, Smt.Kanchi Venkata Subbamma, W/o Kanchi Ramaiah and two others have filed W.P.No.626/1981 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad requesting to quash the order of the Government, dated 12.03.1980 in Memo No.2840/J-2/79-1, dated 12.03.1980. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, Smt.Kanchi Venkata Subbamma, W/o Kanchi Ramaiah and two others have filed W.P.No.626/1981 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad requesting to quash the order of the Government, dated 12.03.1980 in Memo No.2840/J-2/79-1, dated 12.03.1980. 11. The contention of the above writ petitioners was that as per the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1044, Revenue, dated 17.06.1961, a revision lies to the Government against the orders of the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad under Sec.11 (Pro) of the E.A. Act, 1948. This was the only contention of the writ petitioner in the above writ petition. 12. It is further contended that as per rule 1 of the rules in G.O.Ms.No.1044, Revenue, dated 17.06.1961, a revision petition lies to the Government against the orders of Board of Revenue passed under Sec.11 (Pro) of E.A. Act. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.263/1972, dated 05.04.1973 as stuck down the rule permitting revision to the Government as “ultra virus” of the Section 67(1) of the E.A. Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad in BPRT.No.1609/1965, dated 06.05.1965 is final and no revision petition lies to the Government. The Government passed order in Govt.Memo No.2840/79-1, dated 12.03.1980 stating that the Government has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the orders of the Board of Revenue is perfectly legal and valid.” 13. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ordered on 08.10.1984 that the Government has jurisdiction to entertain revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition was taken by the Government. The order copy of the High Court was not received in the office of the District Collector, Chittoor. Apart from the revision petition, the claimants have filed O.S.No.99/1989 before the PDM Court, Tirupati seeking for declaration of their right over the land and the suit was dismissed on 05.04.1995 since the lands are classified as AWD i.e., Government lands. 14. Claimants have also filed W.P.No.22082/1995 seeking direction against the Revenue authorities not to assign, transfer, alienate or to allow anybody to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit lands, since the revision petition is pending disposal before the Government. The High Court in its order in W.P.M.P.No.27160/1995 in W.P.No.22082/1995, dated 29.09.1995 has ordered interim direction as prayed for. 15. The High Court in its order in W.P.M.P.No.27160/1995 in W.P.No.22082/1995, dated 29.09.1995 has ordered interim direction as prayed for. 15. While so, the Government has dismissed the revision petition vide Memo No.247/JA.2/81-27, Revenue (JA) Dept., dated 27.01.1998 as follows:- “The petitioner and their counsel were absent. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati appeared on behalf of the respondent. The matter was heard and it is decided that there is no force in the contention raised by them in the revision petition and see no justification to interfere with the order passed by former Board of Revenue in the matter. The Revision petition accordingly dismissed.” 16. This Court in W.P.No.5141/1998 in W.P.No.4293/1998 vide order, dated 17.02.1998 suspended the orders of the Government. W.P.No.4293/1998 was dismissed on 17.06.1999 for non-prosecution and later restored by the High Court vide orders, dated 26.10.1999 passed in W.P.M.P.No.19475/1999. However, the writ petition was disposed of by orders, dated 07.08.2007 and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for a decision by speaking order. 17. The Government has taken up enquiry, now the Secretary to Government (SS & JA) Department desired to inspect the claimed land at Akkarampalle village of Tirupati (Urban) Mandal. Accordingly, he has inspected the land on 08.2.2001 along with Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati and Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati (Urban). The Government have taken up enquiry vide Memo No.16687/JA.2/Rev(JA), Department, dated 21.02.2000 and issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.298/JA, Department, dated 28.04.2001. 18. Aggrieved by the above order, the District Collector has requested the Government to verify the genuineness of the above orders for which the Government has clarified vide Memo No.28379/JA-2/2001-1, dated 17.05.2001 to treat the above order as genuine one. 19. The District Collector has requested the Government to accord permission to file writ petition against the above orders, as the land is abutting Tirupati town having much house site potentiality and attained real estate value. Therefore, permission was accorded for filing the writ petition against the orders of Government in which it was directed to allot ryotwari patta for the subject land. Further orders, dated 28.04.2001 were kept in abeyance vide order Memo No.4442/JA-2/2002-5, dated 27.02.2003. 20. While so, the High Court on 04.11.2004 dismissed W.P.No.22082/1995 stating that the counsel for petition submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording this submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 21. Further orders, dated 28.04.2001 were kept in abeyance vide order Memo No.4442/JA-2/2002-5, dated 27.02.2003. 20. While so, the High Court on 04.11.2004 dismissed W.P.No.22082/1995 stating that the counsel for petition submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording this submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 21. It is a fact that the judgment, dated 07.08.2007 passed in W.P.No.4293 of 1998, the Government has initiated action for disposal of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and a notice was also issued in Government Memo No.4442/JA-2/2002-10, dated 19.05.2009 duly fixing the enquiry date for appearance for the Revision Petition before the Government either in person or through an advocate and that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban has filed counter before the Govt. Revenue (JA) Department in the matter duly stating that the subject land is classified as Assessed Waste Dry i.e., communal lands and thus vests with Government. 22. The Government vide Memo No.4442/JA-2/2002-11, dated 17.12.2009 has sent a copy of the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioners on 06.06.2009 to the Collector, Chittoor to offer his remarks needs no agitation on the part of the petitioner since several documentary evidences and physical features of the subject land cannot be conceived by the Government in the absence of the remarks of the District Collector who will be stationing authority at the District level and collect the required data to facilitate the government to pass appropriate speaking order as directed by the High Court in W.P.No.4293 of 1998 and the delay if any caused in the matter is the resultant action of the petitioner who moved the Civil Court and High Court several times in the matter, thus the government is no way hurdle in the matter as alleged in by the petitioner for inordinate delay in disposal of the Revision Petition. The delay in disposal of the revision is causing recurring loss and hardship is not based on any facts. Issuance of G.O.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 by the Government, according permission to issue ryotwari patta to an extent of Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.No.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1 of Akkarampalle Village became infructuous in view of the judgment, dated 07.08.2007 passed in W.P.No.4293 of 1998, wherein the High Court has directed the Government to take up the matter afresh and dispose it of in accordance with law. 23. 23. The petitioners have misconstrued the judgment, dated 07.08.2007 passed in W.P.No.4293 of 1998 that the Revision pending before the Government is disposed of afresh. The petitioner claims that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 she is entitled to Ac.4.74 cents as against the total extent of Ac.6.86 cents comprised in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1, 86/1, 104/P etc., of Akkarampalle Village. But, in fact the present writ petitioner way back in the year 1995 has moved the High Court and filed W.P.No.22082 of 1995 and a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition it is revealed that the petitioner has sought for ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.6.86 cents in the following survey numbers of Akkarampalle village. 84/6 0.62 85/1 3.16 86/1 0.96 104/P 0.30 105/P 0.07 105/5 0.16 105/6 0.44 105/9 0.36 105/12A 0.51 105/13A 0.28 Total 6.86 24. It is further submitted that a detailed report narrating the above facts has been submitted to the Government vide reference Roc.F1/15681/1995, dated 17.11.2016 to review the orders of the Government vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014, since the land is high value land and classified as AWD. But, the Government vide Memo No.4442/EA & AR (JA.2) Department, dated 15.03.2018 rejected the request of the District Collector, Chittoor to review the order of the Government, dated 16.05.2014 and requested to implement the orders of the Government issued vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014. On receipt of the interim orders in I.A.No.1/2018, dated 12.12.2018 in the present writ petition is received in the office, dated 21.01.2019, the writ petitioner and his elder brother were issued notices vide reference in Roc.F1/15681/95, dated 22.01.2019 to hear the case on 02.02.2019 and later adjourned to 16.02.2019, 23.02.2019, 02.03.2019. But, because of boycott of courts by Bar Association, Chittoor in support of their agitation for Special Bench of High Court at Tirupati, the matter could not be disposed of and requested to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018, dated 20.12.2018 while dismissing the writ petition. 25. During hearing, Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, when a direction was issued by the Government, it is the duty of the 4th respondent to implement the orders passed by the Government to issue Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of the Act. 26. 25. During hearing, Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, when a direction was issued by the Government, it is the duty of the 4th respondent to implement the orders passed by the Government to issue Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of the Act. 26. Whether the respondents taken up any enquiry, which is contrary to the proceedings under law and therefore such inaction of the respondent No.4 is nothing, but failure to discharge the public duty that cast upon him and consequently such inaction is illegal, arbitrary and requested to direct the respondents to implement the order within the stipulated time frame. 27. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that an enquiry is going on to mutate the name of the petitioner in revenue records as per the provisions and it is pending for consideration, as such appropriate orders will be passed within short time. 28. Considering the rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the sole point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the respondent No.4 is required to conduct any enquiry further to implement the order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014. If not, whether the action of the No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and consequential a direction be issued to implement the orders passed by the Government”. POINT: 29. It is an undisputed fact that, the Government issued Orders in G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev.(JA), dated 28.01.2001 and requested District Collector, Chittoor to grant Ryothwari Patta for an extent of land admeasuring Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.No.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1 i.e., Ac.0.61 cents; Ac.3.16 cents and Ac.0.96 cents respectively, situated in Akarampally Village, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor District under Section 11 (Proviso) of the Act. 30. The Government have issued further orders in Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dt.16.05.2014 and confirmed the earlier Orders issued No.G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev.(JA) Department, dated 28.01.2021 for grant of Ryothwari Patta for the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.No.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1, situated in Akarampally Village, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor District, under Section 11 (proviso) of the Act, 1948 and requested the District Collector, Chittoor to take necessary action in the matter. 31. 31. Government vide Memo.4442/EA & AR/JA.2/2002, dated 15.03.2018 while rejecting review petition filed by the District Collector, Chittoor informed that there are no new ground to review the Orders earlier issued by the Government, vide said Memo No.16.05.2014 and once again requested the District Collector, Chittoor, to implement the Order issued vide Government Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014. 32. On receipt of the interim orders dated 20.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.44191 of 2018, notices were issued to the writ petitioner and his elder brother vide reference No.Roc.F1/15681/95, dated 22.01.2019 intimating the date of hearing as 02.02.2019. Later, the case was adjourned to 16.02.2019, 23.02.2019 and 02.03.2019. But, due to boycott of courts by Bar Association, Chittoor in support of their agitation for Special Bench of High Court at Tirupati, the matter could not be disposed of. 33. In the counter filed by respondent No.3, it is contended that a petition was filed by the father of the writ petitioner before the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor for grant of Ryotwari Patta. A direction was issued by the Government to issue Ryotwari Patta in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. The Government has also stated that, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Government issued a direction to implement the orders passed earlier for issue of Ryotwari Patta in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. But the enquiry is not completed till date. 34. When the Government issued a direction by invoking proviso to Section 11 of the Act to issue Ryotwari Patta, it is the duty of respondent No.4, to implement the orders passed by the Government under the provisions of the Act. 35. Since the petitioner is in possession of the land, the Government has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition under Section 11 of the Act against the orders of the Board of Revenue. “The proviso to Section 11 of the Madras Estate Abolition Act does not seem to justify the conclusion that it is for the government to decide ultimately as to when the person was admitted into possession. “The proviso to Section 11 of the Madras Estate Abolition Act does not seem to justify the conclusion that it is for the government to decide ultimately as to when the person was admitted into possession. The government would come into the picture only if it is decided by these tribunals, including the Board of Revenue that he was admitted into possession after the 1st July, 1945. The Government is vested with discretion and jurisdiction to direct the issue of patta even if admission is after the 1st of July, 1945. It is for the Board of Revenue as the final authority to find out as to when exactly he was admitted in possession. If an exercise of this power, the Board of Revenue comes to the conclusion, in agreement with the Settlement Officer that it is a ryot land and that the person was admitted into possession before the 1st of July, 1945, the Government cannot interfere with it. The orders in Srinadhu Mallappa vs. Board of Revenue, 1966 (1) An. W.R. 157 = 1966 (1) ALT 31 the grant was under a statutory power viz., proviso to section 11 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948. The grant has to be made by the Government. No doubt the settlement officer has to make the enquiry; but the power of granting it is vested in the government under the said section. This power has been delegated to the Board of Revenue, under the rules. As against any order passed by the Board of Revenue, a revision has been provided to the Government by the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.1044, Rev., dated 17th June, 1961. This being a statutory provision, the Board of Revenue once it has passed an order granting patta, it had become functus officio, and no power of revision is vested in it and unless it be an ground of fraud, misrepresentation or other similar grounds, it could not review its own orders.” 36. A detailed report narrating the above facts has been submitted to the Government vide reference Roc.F1/15681/95, dated 17.11.2016 to review the orders of the Government vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014, since the land is of high value and classified as AWD. A detailed report narrating the above facts has been submitted to the Government vide reference Roc.F1/15681/95, dated 17.11.2016 to review the orders of the Government vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014, since the land is of high value and classified as AWD. But the Government vide Memo No.4442/EA&AR (JA.2) Department, dated 15.03.2018 rejected the request of the District Collector, Chittoor to review the orders of the Government, dated 16.05.2014 and requested to implement the orders of the Government. Where required to misrepresentation, the fulfillment for issue of Ryotwari patta under Section 11 (Pro) of the Act. “A reading of the Section 11 (a) of the Act it is clear that every ryot who claims for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act has to fulfill the following requirements. (i) the land claimed as patta land has been in his or her predecessors continuous occupation and possession prior to 01.07.1945 till the notified date of the estate; (ii) the land is ryoti; (iii) the claimant is ryoti; (iv) details regarding pre-abolition records. (v) As held in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Gopal Reddy, 2011 (5) ALD 470 (D.B.) = 2011 (4) ALT 748 ” 37. The Government passed orders for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.298 dated 28.04.2001. Therefore, respondent No.4 has to implement the direction issued by the Government by mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 38. The petitioner made several representations for implementation of the orders for grant of Ryotwari Patta under the Act. The operative portion of the said G.O.No.298 dated 28.04.2001 reads as follows: “11. In the circumstances stated in the foregoing paras, the Government hereby accord permission to allot Ryotwari Patta to an extent of land Ac.4-74 cents in Sy.No.84/6, 85/1 & 86/1 i.e., Ac.0-62 cents, Ac.3-16 cents and Ac.0-96 cents respectively, situated in Akkarampalli Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District under the proviso of Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 in favour of Smt. Kanchi Venkata Subbamma, Sri K. Muni Krishna Reddy and Sri K. Lokanadha Reddy residents of Akkarampalli Village. 12. The Collector, Chittoor is requested to take necessary action accordingly.” 39. Despite the order passed and requests made by the petitioner to implement the orders passed, for the reasons best known to him, the District Collector did not implement the order issued by the Government. 40. 12. The Collector, Chittoor is requested to take necessary action accordingly.” 39. Despite the order passed and requests made by the petitioner to implement the orders passed, for the reasons best known to him, the District Collector did not implement the order issued by the Government. 40. Since the petitioner contended that the notice was ordered in the year 2019, till date no enquiry was conducted. When once the Government issued orders granting Ryotwari Patta in favour of the petitioner, the respondents have to implement the orders passed by the Government without further enquiry under the Act. 41. In any view of the matter, the issue is pending before the concerned authorities since long time to implement the order of the Government. Notices were issued to the petitioner and his elders brother in the year 2019 to hear the case. But, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the enquiry was not completed till date. Now, the petitioner requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to implement the orders issued by the Government. 42. After passing the order by the competent authorities, the government finally, mutated the name of this petitioner in the revenue records, sub dividing the property in accordance with the orders and Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act by following procedure prescribed under the Act. Therefore in these circumstances, it is suffice to issue a direction to respondent No.4 to implement the order passed by the authorities. 43. In view of the circumstances narrated above, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to respondent No.4 to complete the enquiry within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for limited purpose of mutation and sub division. If the process is not completed within two (2) weeks as directed supra, the respondents have to face serious consequences for violation of the orders of this Court. Accordingly the point is answered declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 in implementing the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev (JA) Department, dated 28.04.2001, confirmed vide Govt. If the process is not completed within two (2) weeks as directed supra, the respondents have to face serious consequences for violation of the orders of this Court. Accordingly the point is answered declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 in implementing the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev (JA) Department, dated 28.04.2001, confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002 dated 16.05.204 read with Govt Memo No.4442/EA&AR (JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018, as illegal, arbitrary and such inaction of respondent No.4 amounts to failure to perform the public duty by the Public Officer, consequently, respondent No.4 is directed to complete the enquiry for limited purpose to sub-division and mutation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and implement the order of Government in G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2014. 44. In the result, the Writ petition is allowed declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 in implementing the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev (JA) Department, dated 28.04.2001, confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002 dated 16.05.2014 read with Govt.Memo No.4442/EA&AR (JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018, as illegal and arbitrary while directing respondent No.4 to complete the enquiry for limited purpose of sub division and mutation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.