ORDER : Ravi Cheemalapati, J. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.2828/2016/E1, dated 25.07.2018 of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, as being arbitrary, illegal unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice, without verification of the records, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same with a further direction directing the District Collector not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner and their successors in interest in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1, admeasuring Ac.5-28 cents, Ac.4-18 cents and Ac.0-30 cents, situated at Paradesipalem village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and not to treat the said land as Government land …..….” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that one Devara Appaiah was the pattadar of zeroyithi land in Survey Nos.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1 co-relates to old Survey Nos.183/1 and 183/3 and the settlement adangal prepared during post abolition period and all the revenue records such as 10(1) adangal, settlement fair adangal and the present adangal as well as the survey records i.e. the oldest record in the survey being the Gillmen Register also refers that these lands are private lands and Devara Appaiah was the pattadar. The assistant settlement officer also granted settlement patta under section 11(a) of the A.P.Estate (Abolition & Conversion into ryothwari) Act,1948 in favour of Devara Appaiah. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has purchased the land in Sy.Nos.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1 from the said Devara Appaiah under two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.2533 and 2534 of 2007 and after the said purchase, when he made applications for grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural rejected their applications on the ground that the subject land is a government land and the same is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26335 of 2008 before the High Court and the said writ petition has been later withdrawn seeking liberty to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar passbooks Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26335 of 2008 before the High Court and the said writ petition has been later withdrawn seeking liberty to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar passbooks Act. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred appeal in Rc.No.6116/2009/C before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the said appeal was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide orders dated 29.09.2009, after conducting elaborate enquiry and after verifying the entire record, giving a categorical finding that the said land is a rythwari zeroithi land but not government land and Sri Devara Appaiah is the pattadar vide patta No.163. However, the RDO directed the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural of incorporate the changes in the revenue records after obtaining permission from the District Collector, Visakhapatnam for deleting the said land from Section 22-A of Registration Act. Later, when the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, he was directed to get No Objection Certificate from the District Collector and accordingly the petitioner made an application to the District Collector for issuance of No Objection Certificate and as the revenue authorities did not upon, questioning their inaction, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28080 of 2008 and the said writ petition was allowed on 18.01.2010 directing the Tahsildar to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. As the said order was not complied with, the petitioner filed a contempt case No.1578 of 2010 and thereafter the said orders were complied with and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in the name of the petitioner and thereafter, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued orders dated 22.04.2011 for deletion of the lands from the list of 22-A and the land was deleted from the list and thereafter the Contempt Case was closed. It is the further case of the petitioner that, thereafter, he made an application to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) for sanction of layout and accordingly, layout was approved and orders were issued on 20.10.2014 and the land was converted from agriculture to nonagricultural and layout was prepared by dividing the land into house site plots and several plots were already sold. As per the Municipal Corporation Rules, the roads in the layout and also the common areas have to be handed over to the GVMC authorities and accordingly, when the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of GVMC, Visakhapatnam, he has sought for clarification on the classification of the lands by his letter dated 13.11.2014 from the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and thereafter, the District Collector in his orders in Rc.No.3536/2014/D2, dated 27.02.2016, issued clarification orders to the Commissioner, GVMC, stating that the lands in Sy.Nos.153/1 and 154/1 are zeroithi land and also stated that the then District collector, Visakhapatnam on 22.04.2011 confirmed the classification of the land as zeroithi and requested the Commissioner, GVMC to take necessary further course of action and thereafter, the construction permissions were accorded and some of the buildings have already come up, including a Degree College by the purchasers. Still some more plots are vacant and they are in possession of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in December, 2017 when he approached the Sub Registrar for sale of a plot, he was informed that the land is in the Form-III list of Section 22-A list, which denotes that the land is assigned land. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for deletion and as no orders were passed despite the reports of the Tahsildar and RDO, he filed W.P.No.11142 of 2018 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 04.04.2018 directing the District Collector to examine the claim for deletion of property from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A duly taking into note of the earlier report of the District Collector, whereby the subject land was deleted from prohibitory list, and pass a reasoned order. It is the further case that, the District Collector has passed impugned order dated 25.07.2018 declaring the land in Sy.Nos. 153/1, 153/3 and 154/1, admeasuring Ac.5.28 cents, Ac.4-18 cents and Ac.0-30 cents, situated at Paradesipalem village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as government land and assigned land and also withdrawn the earlier orders of the two District Collectors passed on 22.04.2011 and 27.02.2016 with a further direction to the Tahsildar to resume the land and also directed the Vice-Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority to cancel the layout and also further directed the Commissioner, GVMC to take necessary action. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent-District Collector filed counter affidavit reiterating certain facts of the writ petition inter alia contending that as per the Classification register of Paradesipalem village, the lands covered by Survey No.153/1, measuring Ac.5-28 cents, 153/3 measuring Ac.4-18 cents and Sy.No.154/1 measuring Ac.0-30 cents of Paradesipalem village are government Poramboke lands and those lands were assigned in favour of Mateti Lakshmi and Bommakanti Jagamma during the year 1970 under landless poor category and as per V.A.No.2, it is observed that the land in Survey No.153/1 measruing Ac.5-28 cents was subsequently sub divided as Sy.No.153/1 measuring Ac.0-28 cents and 153/4 measuring Ac.5-00 cents and necessary incorporations were made in the old village account No.2 as per 8A.No.5/79. Only with a view to grab the subject lands, in Adangals in Fasli No.1398, SFA, VA.No.10(1) some incorrect entries were made in collusion with the then officials and that the vendors of the subject land do not have any right in respect of the subject lands and the mere fabricated entry in the revenue record does not conver any entitlement over the subject lands. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner and another Grandhi Kamaraju filed W.P.Nos.1446 and 1441 of 2008 respectively and as per the directions of this Court the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural conducted enquiry and rejected the applications made by the petitioner and another. In appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, without having jurisdiction decide title over the property and despite the fact that question of filing appeal does not arise when there is a title dispute, vide its orders in Rc.No.6116/2009/C, dated 29.09.2009 held that the subject lands are zeroithi lands classified as Ryotwari Dry and not government lands. Thereafter, as per directions of this Court in W.P.No. 28080 of 2009, Pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that, pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner and another, the then District Collector vide proceedings D.Dis.No.3040/2009/E1, dated 22.04.2011 denotified the lands from the prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act basing on the report of the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam that the subject land stands classified as Sarkar Punja as per the pre and post abolition records. In the year 2016, referring to the denotification orders issued by the then District Collector vide D.Dis.No.3040//2009/E1 dated 22.04.2011 a clarification was issued to the Commissioner, GVMC who has sought for a clarification on the plan approval application made by the petitioner with respect to conversion of the subject Government lands as zeroithi lands. On the directions of the District Collector, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural has submitted a report vide Rc.No.258/2015/A dated 21.02.2015 stating that, as per the original D.R.File No.227/71, dated 23.06.1970 available in Tahsildar office, the Sy.No.153/1 measuring an extent of Ac.0-28 cents and Sy.No.153/3 measuring an extent of Ac.4-10 cents of Paradesipalem village was assigned to Smt.Mateti Lakshmi under landless poor category and further as seen from the post abolition survey settlement record i.e. classification Register (Settlement Form-I) available in Tahsildar Office, the land in Sy.No.153/1 (0-28) and 153/3 (4-10) stood recorded as ‘Kundakam’ rounded off and written as “Banjar” and also assignment was granted in favour of Mateti Lakshmi. As per the above original records, it clearly reveals that the subject lands are U.A.W. lands, which are absolutely vested with Government. The petitioners are claiming the subject land as zeroyithi based on the orders vide Rc.No.6116/2009/C, dated 29.09.2009 of the Appellate Authority and Revenue Divisional officer, Visakhapatnam issued under AP ROR Act, 1971, It is further stated that, the petitioner while enclosing the copy of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.11142 of 2018, dated 04.04.2018 filed a representation before the District Collector, Visakhapatnam requesting to delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A. It is further stated that the then District collector, vide progs.Rc.No.2828/2016/E1 dated 23.07.2018 has rejected the request of the applicant stating that the lands covered by S.No.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1 are Government Poramboke lands. Generally, the classification of lands can be changed under the strength of section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Further, as per the procedure that would be followed by the Revenue Department any incorporations/changes in revenue records shall be done with the settlement orders. But no such orders were issued in respect of the above lands which raises the doubt about tampering of Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA). The Tahsildar, who is the primary custodian of the revenue records, has passed orders vide Rc.No.556/2008/ Spl.RI dt. But no such orders were issued in respect of the above lands which raises the doubt about tampering of Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA). The Tahsildar, who is the primary custodian of the revenue records, has passed orders vide Rc.No.556/2008/ Spl.RI dt. 09.11.2008 and held that undoubtedly the subject lands, the SFA and 10(1) Register and V.A.No.3 for Fasli-1408 (year 1998) of Paradesipalem village have been tampered on the name of Sri Devara Appayya with a mala fide intention to grab. Hence, the Tahsildar rejected the plea of the petitioner as the subject land is Government land. It is further stated that, as per the available records such as assignment file bearing D.R.No.727/71 and old V.A.No.2 Account (F-1385 to 1387), it is proved that, the land in question are Government Assigned lands which were assigned in favour of Mateti Lakshmi and Bommakanti Jaggamma during the year 1970 under landless poor category. Thus, the subject lands are Government lands and assigned to B.Jaggamma (Ac.5-00) and Mateti Lakshmi (Ac.4.18 + Ac.0-30= Ac.4-48). Further, as per assignment file, Smt. Mateti Lakshmi was granted D-form patta for the lands in D.R.No.727/71, dated 23.6.1970 of the then Tahsildar, Visakhapanam. But, on ground the assignees are not in possession of the land and hence the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act 9 of 1977 are applicable to these lands. It is further stated that the Tahsildar reported that the petitioner did not mention description of the revenue records he obtained through Right to Information Act and that on further verification the petitioner has enclosed a Xerox copy of 10(1). In this regard, the Tahsildar has reported that 10(1) record is not presently available in the Tahsildar’s office and also that it was already reported by the then Tahsildar in the proceedings in Rc.No.556/2008/Spl.RI, dated 09.11.2008 that in 10(1) register, the name of Devara Appayya was recorded as pattadar in respect of Sy.No.148 under patta No.163 (which is the original entry) and further that on keen observation it can be noticed about the subsequent inserting of Sy.No.153/1 (Ac.5-28), 153/3 (Ac.4-18) and Sy.No.154/1 (Ac.0.40 ) below the entry of Sy.No.148. It was further reported by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam that the records have been manipulated on the name of Sri Devara Appayya with a malafide intention to grab the Government land. It was further reported by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam that the records have been manipulated on the name of Sri Devara Appayya with a malafide intention to grab the Government land. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam has reported that in the previous report, it was mentioned that as per the old village account No.2 (3 fasli years i.e. 1385 to 1387 written in single book) . As per the above old V.A.No.2 Account, it is proved that the land in question is Government assigned lands which were assigned in favour of Mateti Lakshmi and Bommakanti Jaggamma during the year 1970 under landless poor category. The Tahsildar also reported that as per the computerized adangal for the fasli 1404( 1994) the Sy.No.153/1 measuring Ac.0-28 cents and Sy.No.153/3 measuring Ac.4-18 cents is recorded in the name of Mateti Lakshmi vide Khata No.417 and the Sy.No.153-4 measuring Ac.5-00 is recorded in the name of Bommakanti Jaggamma vide khata No.418. It is further stated that the remedy available to an aggrieved party is to approach the State Government for deletion of his property from the notification and for which purpose the state Government vide G.O.Ms.No.300, Revenue(Assignments-I) Department dated 05.07.2016 constituted a committee to consider the grievances of the persons affected by the notification under section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 regarding registration of Prohibitory lands as per the orders dated 23.12.2015 of the High Court in W.A.No.232/2012, 352/2013 and 343/2015 and batch cases. The petitioners approached the court with unclean hands. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The petitioners approached the court with unclean hands. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The petitioners filed reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition and further contending that subsequent to filing of this writ petition, to put a quietus, the Government has constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) vide G.O.Rt.No.2313, dated 17.10.2019 and the petitioner as well as Mateti Lakshmmi filed applications before SIT and the SIT has conducted comprehensive enquiry, verified revenue records, settlement register and after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Mateti Lakshmi has finally held that the subject land is a private zeroithi land and the orders of the collector dated 23.07.2018 are not in consonance with the orders of the statutory authorities and further observed that the orders of the District Collector dated 23.07.2018 cannot override or supersede the statutory orders under section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and also cannot override the orders of the then District Collectors dated 22.04.2011 and 27.02.2016 and the orders of the District Collector dated 23.07.2018 impugned in this writ petition suffer from lack of jurisdiction and competence. There is no power of review to set aside the earlier orders of the District Collector. It is further stated that the counter does not deal with the powers of the District Collector as to under what authority he has set aside the earlier orders of the District Collector, when he is not appellate authority to the earlier Collector and the counter is nothing but reproduction of what has been stated in the impugned order. It is further stated that pursuant to orders passed in W.P.No.28080 of 2009, which have become final, pattadar pass book and title deed have been issued in favour of the petitioner and thus the Government cannot contend that the subject land is a Government land. The contents of the counter show that the District Collector had tried to deal with the matter as if he was the appellate authority to the earlier District Collector and that too ignoring the orders passed in W.P.No.28080 of 2009. The contents of the counter show that the District Collector had tried to deal with the matter as if he was the appellate authority to the earlier District Collector and that too ignoring the orders passed in W.P.No.28080 of 2009. It is further stated that SIT comprising three Members constituted by the Government conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 22.10.2020 and forwarded the same to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, however, he deliberately omitted to mention anything with reference to the said report in the counter filed by him, whereunder denotification of the subject land from section 22-A of the Registration Act has been recommended. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned senior counsel, for Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the lands in Survey Nos. 153/1, 153/3 and 153/4 co-relates to old Survey Nos.183/1 and 183/3 and one Devara Appaiah was the pattadar of the said lands as evidenced by settlement adangal prepared during post abolition period as well as pre abolition period, 10(1) adangal, settlement fair adangal, present adangal as well as survey records and Gillmen Register and the Assistant Settlement officer had also granted settlement patta in respect of the subject lands in favour of the said Devara Appaiah and has drawn the attention of this Court to the copies of the relevant documents placed on record. It is further contended that the said lands have been purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deeds. It is further contended that the said lands have been purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deeds. The learned counsel would further submit that when the Tahsildar rejected the application made by the petitioner for grant of pattadar pass book and title deed on the ground that the said land is a Government land, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar passbooks Act and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visaskhapatnam, after elaborate enquiry gave a finding that the said land is not a Government land and it is a rythwari Zeroyithi land and vendor of the petitioner i.e. Devara Appaiah is the pattadar vide patta No.163 and pursuant to the directions of the RDO, when the petitioner approached Tahsildar, he has directed him to obtain No Objection Certification from the District Collector and as the District Collector did not issue NOC, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28080 of 2009 and the said writ petition was allowed on 18.01.2010 directing the Tahsildar to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in the name of the petitioner and thereafter, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued orders dated 22.04.2011 for deletion of the lands from the list of 22-A and the land was deleted from the list and the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as this Court have been placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions of the said orders. The learned senior counsel would further submit that when the petitioner made application to Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) for sanction of layout and accordingly, layout was approved vide orders dated 20.10.2014 in pursuance thereof the land was converted from agriculture to non-agriculture, layout was prepared by dividing the land into house site plots and several plots were already sold and when the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of GVMC, Visakhapatnam in order to hand over roads and common area in the layout to the Corporation in compliance of Municipal Corporation Rules, the Commissioner has sought for clarification on the classification of the lands by his letter dated 13.11.2014 from the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and thereafter, the District Collector in his orders in Rc.No.3536/2014/D2, dated 27.02.2016, issued clarification orders to the Commissioner, GVMC, stating that the lands in Sy.Nos.153/1 and 154/1 are zeroithi land and also stated that the then District collector, Visakhapatnam on 22.04.2011 confirmed the classification of the land as zeroithi and requested the Commissioner, GVMC to take necessary further course of action and thereafter, the construction permissions were accorded and some of the buildings have already come up. The lay out approval proceedings dated 20.10.2014, the conversion proceedings dated 20.12.2016 and the clarification given by the District Collector to GVMC dated 27.02.2016 are placed on record and the learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made therein. The learned senior counsel would further submit that when the petitioner was informed that the subject land i.e. the layout was included in prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, , he filed W.P.No.11142 of 2018 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the District Collector to examine the claim and the District Collector on improper appreciation of the material available on record, passed the impugned orders dated 25.07.2018 declaring the subject lands as assigned land by withdrawing the earlier orders of the two District Collectors passed on 22.04.2011 and 27.02.2016 with a further direction to the Tahsildar to resume the land and also directed the Vice-Chairman, VUDA to cancel the layout and also further directed the Commissioner, GVMC to take necessary action. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the appeal preferred by the petitioner clearly goes to show that the subject lands are zeroyithi lands classified as Ryotwari Dry and not Government lands and further this Court in W.P.No.28080 of 2009 took note of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and gave a categorical finding that the doubt as to the character of the land stood clarified by the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional officer and directed the Tahsildar to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner and has drawn attention of this Court to the relevant portions of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the orders passed in W.P.No.28080 of 2009. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the District Collector without having any power or authority to review or withdraw the orders passed by the earlier District Collectors has passed the impugned orders as if he was the appellate authority to the earlier District Collector and further in complete ignorance of the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No.28080 of 2009 and hence the impugned orders are highly unsustainable The learned senior counsel would further submit that, the orders of the District Collector are highly arbitrary and they are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, since the District Collector had relied upon certain documents, which have not seen the light of the day and which were not referred to in the orders passed by the earlier District Collectors nor were they relied on by the respondent authorities in the earlier Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner. 7. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader Revenue would submit that the subject lands are Government Poramboke lands and they were assigned in favour of Mateti Lakshmi and Bommakanti Jaggamma during the year 1970 under landless poor category and only with a view to grab the above said lands some fabricated entries were incorporated in Adangals in Falsli No.1398, settlement adangal, Settlement Fair Adangal, V.A.No.10(1) in collusion with the then officials and has drawn the attention of this Court to the Form “D” 727/71, Settlement Fair Adangal and also Adangal, 1404 filed along with the counter affidavit and contended that the said documents clearly go to show that vendor of the petitioner viz., Devara Appayya was shown as pattadar in respect of Survey No.148 to an extent of Ac.10-75 cents under patta No.163 and subsequently Sy.No.153/1 to an extent of Ac.No.5-28 cents, Survey No.153/3 to an extent of Ac.4-18 cetns and Survey No.154/1 to an extent of Ac.0-40 cents were inserted below the entry of Survey No.148, but the authorities have erroneously issued the document copies of SFA, VA.NO.10-1 based on tampered records and thus the copies of the documents filed by the petitioner are not born from genuine records. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that as per the old V.A.No.2 Account for faslies 1385 to 1387, the subject lands are Government Assigned lands assigned in favour of Mateti Lakshmi and Bommakanti Jaggamma during the year 1970 under landless category and the D-form patta issued in favour of Smt. Mateti Lakshmi and the computarised adangal for fasli 1404 corresponding to the year 1994 show that the land to an extent of Ac.0-28 cents in Survey No.153/1, to an extent of Ac.4-18 cents in Survey No.153/3 is recorded in the name of Mateti Lakshmi vide Khata No.417 and land to an extent of Ac.5-00 is recorded in the name of Bommakanti Jaggamma vide Khata No.418 and has drawn the attention of this Court to the said documents, which are filed along with the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer declaring the lands as rythwari Zeroyithi land and Devara Appaiah is the pattadar vide patta No.163 is without jurisdiction and authority for the reason that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the title over the property, especially while dealing with Record of Right proceedings and such enquiry is obviously not a substitute for adjudication by a Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction and that it would not be open to the Revenue authority to set aside transactions or adjudicate complicated issues falling outside the scope of Rule 9(1)a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that only with a view to grab valuable government land, the petitioner and his vendor in collusion with the then revenue officials got fabricated some false entries as if Devara Appaiah was the pattadar and the subject land is a rythwari zeroyithi and on the basis of copies of the documents obtained of such fabricated entries got earlier orders. In fact, the subject lands are assigned lands and they were assigned to Mateti Lakshmi and Bommakanti Jaggamma. The District Collector, upon perusal of the entire material available on record and taking into consideration the falsification of accounts has passed the impugned orders and the said orders does not require interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. In reply to the said submission the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the 10(1) Adangal, which is placed on record and contended that patta No.417 relates to Bora Kanakaiah but not Mateti Laksmi and similarly patta No.418 relates to Bora Guravaiah but not Bommakanti Jaggamma as contended by the revenue officials. The learned senior counsel in support of his contention has drawn the attention of this Court to the Karanam’s copy of the Settlement Adangal of the village, which is placed on record, wherein the petitioner’s vendor Devara Appaiah is shown as pattadar of Survey Nos.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1. The learned senior counsel in support of his contention has drawn the attention of this Court to the Karanam’s copy of the Settlement Adangal of the village, which is placed on record, wherein the petitioner’s vendor Devara Appaiah is shown as pattadar of Survey Nos.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 30.04.1957, which is placed on record, issued by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer in favour of the petitoiner’s vendor Devara Appaiah, wherein the petitioner’s vendor was declared as land holder within the meaning of Section 2(8) of Madras Estat6es (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and he is entitled to a ryotwari patta under section 12(b)(iii) of the said Act. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated --/01/1992, which is a correlation statement of Parqadesipalem village contending that the lands in R.S.No.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1 corelates to Survey No.183/1 and 183/3 and the land is classified as Ryotwari Dry. 9. The averments of the writ petition and counter-affidavit clearly show that there is a serious dispute regarding title to the subject property and also its classification. As per the petitioner, his vendor Devara Appaiah was the pattadar and the subject land is a rythwari zeroyithi. Whereas, it was Government land assigned to Mateti Lakshmi and Bommakanti Jaggamma in the year 1970. In the counter affidavit, a serious allegation as to fabrication of the revenue records was made with a specific contention that based on the fabricated entries, earlier orders were obtained. 10. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is denotification of the land from prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 11. To substantiate his contention that the subject land is a zeroithi land and one Devara Appaiah was its pattadar, the petitioner relied on certain documents filed along with the writ petition. 12. 10. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is denotification of the land from prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 11. To substantiate his contention that the subject land is a zeroithi land and one Devara Appaiah was its pattadar, the petitioner relied on certain documents filed along with the writ petition. 12. The proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer in S.R.No.15-1467/VSP, dated 30.04.1957 shows that on the application filed by Devara Appayya, son of Appayya under Section 12 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 for grant of ryotwari patta, the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer after following the procedure contemplated under law allowed the claim made by the said Devara Appayya declaring him as landholder within the meaning of Section 2(8) of Act XXVI of 1948 and hence he is entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 12(b)(iii) of the said Act. 13. For expediency, the above said orders are extracted hereunder: “This is an application under Sec. 12 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948-from Sri Devara Appayya, s/o. Appayya for grant of ryotwari patta for the lands mentioned in schedule I to these proceedings. The lands are situated in Paradesipalem Village, a kamin estate, which was notified by the Government under Sec. 1(4) of the Act and taken over by the District Collector on 15-7-55. The village under reference is in Visakhapatnam Taluk of Visakhapatnam District. A notice under Rule 3(1) of the Rules issued in G.O.2725, Rev, dt. 12th October, 1956 duly published in the village on 23-3-57 posting the enquiry to 9-4-57 and a notice was also affixed to the notice board of my office. A copy was served on the applicant and another copy was sent to the Manager of the Estate, Vizianagaram. No objections have been received. The witnesses have been examined on behalf of the applicant. P.W.1, the applicant deposes that he owns Acs.9-76 in O.S.No.183/1, 183/3, which is sub-divided Estate No.3034. It is his ancestral property and he owns both warams in it. He has been personally cultivating it since 20 years. P.W.2, the karnam of the village corroborates the above version and certifies that there are no poramboke or bunjars in the land. The evidence on record shows that the land covered by the schedule is sub-divided Estate No.3034 of Paradesipalem village. He has been personally cultivating it since 20 years. P.W.2, the karnam of the village corroborates the above version and certifies that there are no poramboke or bunjars in the land. The evidence on record shows that the land covered by the schedule is sub-divided Estate No.3034 of Paradesipalem village. It is the ancestral property of the applicant owned with both warams and has been in his personal cultivation since 20 years. The applicant is, therefore landholder within the meaning of Sec.2(8) of Act XXVI of 1948 and he is entitled to a ryotwari patta under Sec.12(b)(iii) of the said Act. The claim is accordingly allowed.” 14. The proceedings of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer makes it clear that one Devara Appaiah owns an extent of Acs.9-76 cents in O.S.No.183/1, 183/3, which is sub-divided Estate No.3034, and it is his ancestral property and he had been personally cultivating it since about 20 years and hence the said Devara Appaiah was granted ryotwari Patta under Section 12(b)(iii) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. 15. The Karnam’s copy of settlement Adangal of Paradeshipalem village, Visakhapatnam District shows that Devara Appaiah, Son of Appaiah was the pattadar in an extent of Ac.5-28 cents in Sy.No.153-1 (old Sy.No.183/1B), Ac.4-18 cents in Sy.No.153-3(old Sy.No.183/3) and Ac.0-30 cents in Sy.No.154-1 (old Sy.No.183/B) of Paradeshipalem village, Visakhapatnam District. 16. The Village Settlement Register placed on record as Ex.P3 and the adangal of 1408 fasali shows that Devara Appaiah, son of Appaiah was the pattadar of the above extents of the land. 17. The certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) vide L.Dis.No.103/92/HA, dated -1-1992 shows that R.S.Nos.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1 correlates to O.S.Nos.183/1, 183/3 and the said land is classified as Ryotwari Dry. Further, the certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) vide Rc.No.1121/2006/ Spl.RI/Dt. 18-10-2006 issued to Devara Apparao shows that, as verified from the office records, no pattadar passbook and title deed were issued for the lands covered by S.Nos.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1. 18. It is the specific case of the petitioner that based on the above referred documents, one Devara Appa Rao is the pattadar and possessor of an extent of Ac.5-28 cents in Survey No.153/1, Ac. 4-18 cents in Survey No.153/3 and Ac.0-30 cents in Survey No.154/1 and Survey Nos. 153/1, 153/3 and 154/1 correlates to old survey Nos.183/1, 183/3. 19. 18. It is the specific case of the petitioner that based on the above referred documents, one Devara Appa Rao is the pattadar and possessor of an extent of Ac.5-28 cents in Survey No.153/1, Ac. 4-18 cents in Survey No.153/3 and Ac.0-30 cents in Survey No.154/1 and Survey Nos. 153/1, 153/3 and 154/1 correlates to old survey Nos.183/1, 183/3. 19. The record further discloses that the petitioner purchased Ac.0-30 cents in Survey No.153/1 (old Survey No.183/1) and Ac.5-58 cents in Survey No.154/1 (old Survey No.183/1) bearing patta No.163, from Devara Appala Narsamma and others under registered sale deed dated 23.10.2006. 20. In the representations made by the petitioner to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 19.02.2017 it was stated that when the registering authorities initially assigned pending document No.369 of 2006 to the sale deed dated 23.10.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act before the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam and during the course of hearing of the above appeal, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) appeared before the District Registrar and deposed that the recorded evidence produced by the appellants pertaining to the lands in Survey Nos.153/1, 153/3 and 154/1 of Paradesipalem village are genuine. After hearing the appeal, the District Registrar disposed of the same by order dated 16.04.2007 directing the Sub Registrar, Madhurawada to examine the same and dispose of the same in accordance with the circular dated 13.11.2016 of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, whereunder the District Registrars and Sub Registrars were instructed not to register the documents on the clearance certificates issued by Mandal Revenue Officers, unless the said certificates were confirmed by District Collector. Questioning the action of the Sub Registrar in not registering the document, the petitioner filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.9374 of 2007 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the registering authorities to process the sale deed dated 23.10.2006 without reference to the circular instructions dated 13.11.2006. Pursuantly, the sale deed of the petitioner was registered as document No.2534 of 2007. 21. The record further discloses that, when the representation made by the petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue records was kept pending without being disposed of by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.1446 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to dispose of the representation. 21. The record further discloses that, when the representation made by the petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue records was kept pending without being disposed of by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.1446 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to dispose of the representation. Pursuantly, the Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings in Rc.No.556 of 2008 dated 09.11.2008 rejected the request of the petitioner for mutation of his name. 22. Assailing the above said orders dated 09.11.2008, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the said appeal was allowed vide orders dated 29.09.2009 in Rc.No.6116/2009/c holding that the lands measuring Ac.5- 28 cents in Survey No.153/1, Ac.4-18 cents in Survey No.153/3 and Ac.0- 30 cents in Survey No.154/1 of Paradesipalem village are zeroyithi lands classified as rythwari dry and not government lands and directed the Tahsildar to incorporate changes in the revenue records after obtaining permission from the District Collector for deleting the said lands from the list of prohibited properties furnished to the Registration Department under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “20. At the outset, it is evident from the foregoing paras, the former Tahsildar (Sri NSN Swamy) Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal, has not examined the pre-abolition and post abolition records, and not even discussed on all the points raised in the explanation of the appellants (vide para 7 to 16). He simply arrived to a false assumption that the connected records was tampered. How he could come to such conclusion, has not been discussed either in the proceedings Dt. 09.11.2008 or in the remarks offered by the then Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal, which seems to be arrived without any basis. This shows the clear infirmity on the part of the former Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal, who should have examined all the documents/ reports, put forth by the petitioners, in toto. But he failed to do so. Hence, I do find reason in setting aside the proceedings orders of the then Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal, issued in Rc.No.556/2008/Spl.R1/ dated 09.11.2008 and the appeal is allowed in respect of claim that the subject lands are zeroyithi lands and not government lands. But he failed to do so. Hence, I do find reason in setting aside the proceedings orders of the then Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal, issued in Rc.No.556/2008/Spl.R1/ dated 09.11.2008 and the appeal is allowed in respect of claim that the subject lands are zeroyithi lands and not government lands. In view to the discussions in foregoing paras, I hold that lands in S.No.153/1, Ac.5-28 cts. S.No.153/3, Ac.4-18 cts. and S.No.154/1, Ac.0-30 cets. are zeroyithi lands classified as Ryotwari Dry and not Government lands. The Tahsildar,Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal is directed to incorporate changes in revenue records after obtaining permission from District Collector, Visakhapatnam for deleting the said lands from Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and Amended Act, 2007. Regarding issue of PPB/TDs the appellants are directed to file claim before the competent authority to prove their title. On filing such applications, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal is directed to dispose them after due enquiry.” 23. In the above orders, the Revenue Divisional Officer has declared that the subject lands are zeroyithi lands and not government lands and directed the Tahsildar to incorporate necessary changes in the revenue records after obtaining the orders of the District Collector. When the petitioner approached the Tahsildar for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds, the Tahsildar directed him to get no objection certificate from the District collector and accordingly the petitioner made an application to the District Collector and as there was no response, he filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28080 of 2009 and the said writ petition was allowed vide orders dated 18.01.2010 directing the Tahsildar to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the orders dated 18.01.2010 is extracted hereunder: “The petitioners preferred an appeal before the third respondent, as directed by this Court, in its order, in W.P.No.26535 of 2008. The third respondent has undertaken an extensive discussion of the entire matter with reference to the record. His conclusion is contained in the last paragraph of the order and it reads as under: In view of the discussion in foregoing paras I hold that the lands in S.No.153/1 Ac.5-28 cts. S.No.153/3 Ac.4-18cts. And S.No.154/1, Ac.0-30 cts. are Zeroyithi lands classified as Ryotwari Dry and not Government lands. His conclusion is contained in the last paragraph of the order and it reads as under: In view of the discussion in foregoing paras I hold that the lands in S.No.153/1 Ac.5-28 cts. S.No.153/3 Ac.4-18cts. And S.No.154/1, Ac.0-30 cts. are Zeroyithi lands classified as Ryotwari Dry and not Government lands. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) is directed to incorporate changes in revenue records after obtaining permission from District Collector, Visakhapatnam for deleting the said lands from Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and Amended Act, 2007. Regarding issue of PPB/TDs the appellants are directed to file claim before the competent authority to prove their title. On filing such applications the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) is directed to dispose them after due enquiry. With this, the doubt as to the character of the land, namely whether it is Government or patta land, stood clarified. The notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act issued at an earlier point of time virtually becomes redundant vis-à-vis the land, with the unequivocal pronouncement made by the third respondent. Whatever may have been justification for the fourth respondent in not issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds, when doubt existed as to the character of the land, he cannot deny the same even after the third respondent passed the order dated 29.09.2009. In fact, failure or refusal to issue pattadar passbooks in the given circumstances would amount to abdication of duties caste under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Act, 1971. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the fourth respondent is directed to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land referred to above duly verifying, and issuing notice to the vendor of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” Pursuant to the above orders, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued orders dated 22.04.2011 for deletion of the land from the list of 22-A. For convenience, the relevant portions of the said order are extracted hereunder: “The original record of SFA, VA No.10(1), VA No.3, MDR are verified. The SFA is in torn condition and all the pages are open and unstitched. Among the loose papers, the relevant page pertaining to Sy.No.153 and 154 is found place. The SFA is in torn condition and all the pages are open and unstitched. Among the loose papers, the relevant page pertaining to Sy.No.153 and 154 is found place. As seen from that page, the Sy.No.153/1 with an extent of Ac.5.28 cents, Sy.No.153/3 with an extent of Ac.4.18 cents and Sy.No.154/1 with an extent of Ac.0-30 cents stands classified as Sarkaru Punja (Govt.Dry) and was registered in the name of Devara Appayya under Patta No.163. As seen from VA No.10(1), some pages found missing including the page pertaining to Patta No.163, wherein the lands covered by Sy.Nos.153/1 & 3 and 154/1 are supposed to be available. As seen from VA No.3 for Fasli 1410(year 2000),the Sy.No.153/1,3 and 154/1 are not found place. However, as seen from the MDR, the Sy.No.153/1 & 3 and 154/1 with an extent of Ac.5-28 cents, Ac.4-18 cents and Ac.0-30 cents respectively stands classified as Sanraku Punja (Govt.Dry) and was registered in the name of Devara Appaiah under Patta No.163. * ** Therefore, in view of the circumstances stated above, the land measuring Ac.9.76 cents covered by Sy.Nos.153/1 & 3 and 154/1 of Paradesipalem village is hereby withdrawn from the list of Government lands notified U/s. 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 (Amended Act, 2007), as detailed below: Sy.No. Extent 153/1 Ac. 5-28 cts 153/3 Ac.4-18 cts 154/1 Ac.0.30 cts Total Ac.9.76 cts. The Sub Registrar, Madhurawada is requested to take necessary action in the matter. (This has got approval of the Collector, Viaskhapatnam) 24. The record further discloses that the petitioner made an application to the Visakhapatnam Development Authority (VUDA) for sanction of layout and accordingly, the lay out was approved and orders were issued on 20.10.2014 vide proceedings Rc.No.3398/2014/L5. Thereafter, when the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner, GVMC, Visakhapatnam to hand over roads in the layout and common areas to GVMC as per Municipal Corporation Rules, the Commissioner sought clarification of the District Collector. Thereupon, the District Collector issued clarification orders vide Rc.No.3536/2014/D2, dated 27.02.2016 clarifying that the subject lands are zeroyithi lands. The relevant portion of the said proceedings are extracted hereunder: “There was a discrepancy regarding classification of above said land and complains also came up from various people. Thereupon, the District Collector issued clarification orders vide Rc.No.3536/2014/D2, dated 27.02.2016 clarifying that the subject lands are zeroyithi lands. The relevant portion of the said proceedings are extracted hereunder: “There was a discrepancy regarding classification of above said land and complains also came up from various people. The matter went on various court cases and the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam has examined all the records thoroughly and passed orders confirming the classification of above said land taking into consideration of entries available in MDR and other revenue records. Thereby, the then Collector, Visakhapatnam has passed detailed order duly considering all the issues and confirmed the classification of the land as Govt. Dry (Zeroyithi) vide Proceedings D.Duis.No.3040/2009/E1, Dt.22.04.2021, which is self-explanatory. I therefore, request you to take necessary further course of action in the matter.” 25. From the above material placed on record, it is abundantly clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, has given a categorical finding that S.No.153/1, Ac.5-28 cents, S.No.153/3, Ac.4-18 cents and S.No.154/1, Ac.0-30 are Zeroyithi lands classified as Ryotwari Dry and not Government lands. Further, this Court vide orders dated 18.01.2010 passed in W.P.No.28080 of 2009 having observed that by virtue of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the doubt as to the character of the land stood clarified, directed the Tahsildar to issue pattadar Passbooks in favour of the petitioner for the lands referred to above. Moreover, the District Collector vide proceedings dated 22.04.2011 has withdrawn Ac.9-76 cents from the list of Government lands notified under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908. The record further discloses that when the Visakhapatnam Development Authority (VUDA) sought clarification, the District Collector issued clarification orders confirming the classification of above said lands. 26. With the above background, the impugned orders is to be scanned. 27. The pleadings, submissions made by both the learned counsel and the material available on record makes it abundantly clear that the impugned orders passed by the District Collector are preceded by two orders passed by earlier District Collectors. It is also evident that, earlier this Court vide orders dated 18.01.2010 directed the concerned revenue authority to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner and another. In the orders, this Court has categorically held that the character of the land stood clarified. It is also evident that, earlier this Court vide orders dated 18.01.2010 directed the concerned revenue authority to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner and another. In the orders, this Court has categorically held that the character of the land stood clarified. Further, the then District Collectors have issued proceedings dated 22.04.2011 withdrawing the subject land from the list of Government land notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the proceedings dated 27.02.2016 holding that the subject land is a Zeroyithi land and basing on the same the conversion proceedings from agricultural to non-agricultural was also issued dated 20.12.2016 and also the 9th respondent-VUDA has issued layout approval vide proceedings dated 20.10.2014. 28. It is the specific contention of the respondents that the land in an extent of Ac.0-28 cents in Survey No.153/1 and Ac.4-18 cents in Survey No.153/3 was assigned to one Mateti Lakshmi, Wife of Krishna Murthy during the year 1970 and that the land in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in Survey No.153/1 was assigned to one Bommakanti Jagamma vide Khata Nos.417 and 418 of Paradesipalem and the Old village Account No.2 for three fasli years i.e. F-1385 to 1387 reflects their names as assignees of the said property. 29. The material papers filed by the petitioner shows that Patta Nos.417 was issued to Bora Kanakaiah for the lands situated in Survey Nos.130-4, 130-2A, 130-11E, 106-1E and patta No.418 was issued to Bora Guravaiah, son of Appa Rao in respect of Survey No.63.80. This falsifies the contention of the respondents that patta Nos.417 and 418 were issued in favour of Mateti Lakshmi and Bommakanti Jaggamma for the lands situated in Survey Nos.153/1 & 3 and 154/1. 30. Further, though the revenue authorities tried to find fault with the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer in declaring the lands as Zeroyithi but not government lands, admittedly, they did not choose to prefer any appeal or revision challenging the findings given by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Adding to the same, basing on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court, vide orders in W.P.No.28080 of 2009, in specific terms, held that the doubt as to the character of the land stood clarified. Adding to the same, basing on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court, vide orders in W.P.No.28080 of 2009, in specific terms, held that the doubt as to the character of the land stood clarified. The said order attained finality and the same was acted upon and pursuantly the revenue authorities have issued Pattadar passbooks and title deed in respect of the subject lands in favour of the petitioner. 31. Thus, the classification of the subject land stood clarified not only by this Court, but also by the proceedings of the former District Collectors. 32. This court in Gas Authority of India Limited vs. The Competent Authority and Special Deputy Collector, Gas Authority of India Limited and others AIR 1997 AP 284 held as follows: “7 . It is well settled and learned single Judge has also accepted it as a sound principle of law that a statutory authority or Tribunal cannot review or reopen any order made by it. Power to review is always granted to such authorities by express provision of law. They do not have the inherent power to review their acts or orders as the Courts possess. No statute has been brought to our notice, under which the competent authority under the Act, is empowered to review or reopen his own act or order. If successors-in-office start finding fault with the acts of the predecessors-in-office and start reopening all that the predecessors have done, it will be impossible to limit recall of order of one successor of the order by his predecessor. Sri Srinivasulu, who is the incumbent competent authority has chosen to review the order of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao. If he can do so, his successor can also do the same to his orders. The Act has taken care to provide for a protest to amount of compensation by the competent authority by way of an application to the District Judge and has made the order of the District Judge final. The order passed by Sri Srinivasulu, the incumbent competent authority is indeed in the nature of an order of review of the order of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao. Law does not empower any such review. In sum, it is difficult to accept the case of respondents 2 to 186 that they have been paid ad hoc compensation only. The order passed by Sri Srinivasulu, the incumbent competent authority is indeed in the nature of an order of review of the order of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao. Law does not empower any such review. In sum, it is difficult to accept the case of respondents 2 to 186 that they have been paid ad hoc compensation only. Even if their case that they have been paid only the ad hoc compensation is accepted, they had the remedy of making an application to the District Judge and not to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant company. The first respondent has acted without jurisdiction in entering into the proceeding of his predecessors-in-office and finding fault With the enquiry conducted by them. Respondents have thus acted in a manner that does not have the sanction or approval of law. The impugned judgment for the said reason is fit to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The writ appeal is allowed.” 33. In the case on hand, the District Collector wants to circumvent the earlier orders of the District Collectors on the ground that the said orders were obtained on the basis of the interpolated and fabricated records. As could be seen from the record, in the earlier orders, the District Collectors have specifically mentioned that they have gone through the relevant records before passing the orders. The second respondent-District Collector has acted without jurisdiction in entering into the proceeding of his predecessors-in-office and finding fault With the enquiry conducted by them. If at all, the authorities were aggrieved by the orders passed by the earlier District Collectors, they would have carried the matter to the appellate or revisional authorities, but they cannot reopen and review the matter endlessly, moreover when the issue regarding classification of the land has been given a quietus by this Court vide orders in W.P.No.28080 of 2009. 34. From the above, it is evident that, by passing the impugned orders, the District Collector has reopened and reviewed the orders passed by his predecessors-in-office, which is impermissible under law. 35. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam in Rc.No.2828/2016/E1, dated 25.07.2018. However, this order does not preclude the respondent authorities to take steps as per law, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. 35. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam in Rc.No.2828/2016/E1, dated 25.07.2018. However, this order does not preclude the respondent authorities to take steps as per law, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.