Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 817 (AP)

Kunati Subbaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-06-13

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2023
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief : “to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly on in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to order bearing No.F1/4548/2012, dated 09.09.2019, passed by the 5th respondent, and set aside the same, as illegal, contrary to law, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and also the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 consequently direct the 6th respondent to act upon the application vide Roc.F1/4548/2012 for implementation of orders of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor issued under 15(1) of EA Act, 1948 in SR.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT dated 31.08.1961 for land in old survey no.1, new survey no.1P admeasuring 600.00 acres in Ramanujapalle village of Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District and to carry out necessary mutations in the revenue records and to issue the pattadar passbooks in accordance with proceedings S.R.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961, as confirmed by higher authorities…..” 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that a joint patta was granted in the name of grandfather of the 1st petitioner and the ancestors of the other petitioners in the Estate Dittam account vide patta No.2 and as per the said joint patta the first petitioner’s grandfather, and ancestors of other petitioners were granted joint patta vide S.R.No.432/ 15(1)/60/ PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 under Section 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 to an extent of Ac.600-00 cents in Old Survey No.1, R.S.No.1P of Ramanujapalle village of Srikalahasthi Mandal of Chittoor District and the petitioners are the surviving legal representatives of the pattadars of the said lands. It is the further case of the petitioners that, inspite of allotment of the land, though the petitioners made several efforts, the revenue authorities did not carry out necessary mutations and subsequent amendments in the connected revenue records and the said land is classified as ‘Adavi Poramboke’ in revenue records as if reflected in the proceedings of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer and the proceedings though became final, remained unimplemented in the revenue records. The 1st petitioner and ancestors of other petitioners made several oral representations to the 6th respondent-Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi to issue pattadar passbooks and patta Certificates/Title deeds in their names but they went in vain and the 5th respondent-Joint Collector also had not initiated any action on the representations so submitted by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner’s grandfather and ancestors of the other petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land even prior to the order issued by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor as is evidenced from the deposition of the village karanam before the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor and the same is also reflected in the order issued vide SR.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 and the petitioners have also paid cist until abolition of land revenue for dry lands. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner’s grandfather and ancestors of other petitioners were granted Ryotwari pattas for the subject lands and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands, however, their names have not been mutated in the revenue records and despite representation made to the 5th respondent on 09.04.2012 for issuance of pattadar passbooks, the authorities failed to issue the same till date. The petitioners learnt that the respondents are contemplating steps to allot the said land to third parties, while keeping the representation of the 1st petitioner pending, contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Estate Abolition Act,1948. The petitioners strongly apprehend that the respondent authorities, may meddle with and tamper the records, as they are custodians of records, as such, it is just and essential that the said record be called for so as to know the factual status. It is the further case of the petitioners that questioning the inaction of the respondents in issuing pattadar pass books, they filed W.P.No.11192 of 2012 and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to submit an application in Form VI(A) under the A.P. Rights of Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act before the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent shall take steps within a period of three months from the date of receiving the application and if it emerges that the petitioners cannot be issued pattadar passbooks and Title deeds, the reasons thereof shall be communicated to them within the same time. In pursuance thereof, the 1st petitioner approached the 6th respondent and submitted all the relevant material and the 6th respondent rejected the request for the grant of pattadar passbook and Title deed without applying his mind. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st petitioner preferred appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and the said authority has been pleased to pass an order dated 25.07.2013, holding that settlement patta granted to ancestors of the 1st petitioner under Section 15(1) of the Estates Abolition Act has become final and the Tahsildar has only stated that since the lands have been notified as Reserve Forest under Section 4 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 and hence the said patta cannot be implemented and since patta was granted in 1961, whereas the lands were notified as Reserve Forest in the year 1969 and the grant of patta created rights in the grantee from the date on which the notification taking over the Estate takes effect and the Joint Collector is directed to examine this issue. As the orders passed by CCLA dated 25.07.2013 have not been implemented, the petitioners filed W.P.No.31828 of 2018 and this Court vide orders dated 10.10.2018 directed the 5th respondent to take steps for implementation of orders of the Commissioner of Appeal, dated 25.07.2013. It is the further case of the petitioners that after a gap of five (05) years, the 5th respondent passed impugned orders on 09.09.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioners holding that all the documentary evidences submitted by the petitioners are fabricated and created documents including the attested copy of orders of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer passed in S.R.No.432/15/1(1)/60PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 and that the land in Survey No.1 of Ramanujapalle is classified as ‘Adavi’ and the same is vested with Forest Department. The petitioners submit that the 5th respondent even after confirming the genuineness of the documents in question and the same are part of the record, has not taken the same into consideration and passed the orders under challenge without applying the mind nor has looked into the documents which have been corresponded with the 4th respondent i.e. the District Judge, Nellore and the 3rd respondent. The order of the 5th respondent is arbitrary, illegal and unjust and the 5th respondent has not taken into consideration the observations made by the Commissioner of Land Administration. The order of the 5th respondent is arbitrary, illegal and unjust and the 5th respondent has not taken into consideration the observations made by the Commissioner of Land Administration. Hence, the said orders of the 5th respondent are impugned in this writ petition. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit inter alia contending that, originally the land in Survey No.1 measuring an extent of Ac.903-63 cents of Ramanujapalli village is registered as ‘Adavi’ in the Fair Adangal. The 6th respondent-Tahsildar has issued an endorsement stating that the land is ‘Reserve Forest’ and the S.R.file No.432/15(1)/60/PN/ KHT, dated 31.12.1961 is a non-existing one and this file was not received from the defunct Settlement Officer, Nellore after the disbandment. It is further stated that during 2007, under IV Phase Assignment programme, an extent of Ac.151-00 of land in Survey No.1 of Ramanujapalli village was granted as DKT pattas to 92 beneficiaries, including to persons belonging to the families of the writ petitioners and if at all they were having ryotwari patta granted in their favour in the year 1961, they would not have agreed for the grant of assignment in their names and this proves beyond doubt that the file referred to above is a fabricated and created one with an intention to grab the large extent of government land. Similarly, SR No.330/11(1)/64/SKHT, dated 30.11.1966 and SR No.661/ 15(1)/60/PN/KHT, dated 18.12.1961 were also created files for the same land and they are being contested before this Court by District Administration to declare the land as government land. In pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 09.10.2012 in W.P.No.11192 of 2012, the 6th respondent has issued endorsement in D.Dis.No.380/2012 that the land measuring an extent of 903.63 cents is notified as ‘Gollapalle Reserve Forest’ and the Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction to grant Ryotwari patta and therefore, the request of the petitioner for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed for the claimed lands was rejected. The 5th respondent-Joint Collector, Chittoor has issued the impugned proceedings by scanning the material available on record and having found that the purported orders of the Settlement Officer passed on 31.08.1961 is a fabricated, bogus and created document, since the same was not filed by the petitioners before the Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore when he conducted enquiry on 31.10.1981 and the said order contains so many defects and no such file was handed over to the Collector’s Office, Chittoor. It is further stated that the Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore published notification in District Gazette dated 19.12.1969 calling for objections for including of 12,200 acres in Gollapalli Forest Block and in response to the said proclamation, some of the writ petitioners appeared before the Forest Settlement Officer on 30.10.1981 and filed written statement requesting to set apart an extent of Ac.600-00 from the ‘Reserve Forest’ for communal needs viz., green manure and lay a cart track for the purpose of villagers and accordingly, the Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore had passed orders in RC/A2/2434/69, dated 09.03.1982 for exclusion of the areas in Sy.No.1, but the said orders were not implemented so far and thereafter DKT pattas for an extent of Ac.151-00 in Survey No.1 of the village were also granted to 92 beneficiaries in 2007, but they were not permitted by the Forest Department to enter into the lands and there have been forest and revenue boundaries disputes with regard to this land. Later, the Government issued Memo No.14957/For-I/88-2 clarifying that as the lands in question are classified in Government records as forest, it is necessary to obtain the permission of the Government of India as per the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1982 for excluding them from Forest Block and for the purpose of using forest land for non-forestry purpose, the procedure prescribed in the Forest (Conservation) Act, for deservation has to be followed and the above orders were communicated to the District Collector Chittoor for cancellation of the DKT pattas. It is further stated that since the subject land is classified as ‘Adavi’ and the petitioners have no right and possession over the land and the forest department never allowed the petitioners to enter into the lands in question and as the settlement order No.432/15(1)/60PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 is a non-existing one, the 5th respondent-Joint Collector has passed the impugned orders after thoroughly examining the record in right perspective and thus the impugned orders do not require any interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Mahesh Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader attached of the office of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 5. Sri Mahesh Raje, learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration would submit that, the ancestors of the petitioners were granted joint patta in respect of the subject land and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands and for mutation of the lands in their favour and for issuance of pattadar passbooks, the petitioners made a representation dated to the 6th respondent, however, keeping pending the said representation, as the respondent authorities were taking steps to allot the said land to third parties, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.11192 of 2012 for a direction to the respondents to issue pattadar passbooks in respect of the subject property and the same was disposed of directing the petitioners to submit application to the 6th respondent in Form VI(A) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act and accordingly the petitioners submitted application, enclosing Ryotwari Patta granted by the District Court, Nellore on 01.07.2012 and all other documents. However, the 6th respondent rejected the application without application of mind and has drawn attention of the Court to the said proceedings which are placed on record. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed appeal and the Commissioner of Appeals was pleased to direct the Joint Collector, Chittoor to examine the issue at his level after verifying the documents and pass appropriate orders and has drawn the attention of this Court to the said orders passed in CCLA’s proceedings No.P1/538/2013 dated 25.07.2013 placed on record. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed appeal and the Commissioner of Appeals was pleased to direct the Joint Collector, Chittoor to examine the issue at his level after verifying the documents and pass appropriate orders and has drawn the attention of this Court to the said orders passed in CCLA’s proceedings No.P1/538/2013 dated 25.07.2013 placed on record. The learned counsel further submitted that, the petitioner approached the 5th respondent and submitted all the relevant documents and the 5th respondent had even sent the order of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor dated 31.08.1961 to the District & Sessions Judge, Nellore and to the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad and both the authorities have replied confirming the genuinity and has drawn the attention of this Court to the letters placed on record. The learned counsel further submitted that, as the 5th respondent did not dispose of the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.31928 of 2018 and the same was disposed of vide orders dated 10.10.2018 directing the 5th respondent to take steps for implementation of orders of Commissioner’s of Appeal and has drawn attention of the orders placed on record. The learned counsel further submitted that, after a gap of five (05) years the 5th respondent had passed orders dated 09.09.2019 rejecting the petitioners’ case on the ground that the orders of the Additional Assistant Settlement officer is fabricated and created one and that the land is classified as Adavi, ignoring the observations made by the Commissioner of Appeals. The learned counsel further submitted that, the 5th respondent did not apply his mind and mechanically passed the order. The said order is illegal, contrary to law and the same cannot stand to scrutiny. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that, the land in Sy.No.1 admeasuring Ac.903.63 cents, which includes the subject land is registered as ‘Adavi’ as per Fair Adangal. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that, the land in Sy.No.1 admeasuring Ac.903.63 cents, which includes the subject land is registered as ‘Adavi’ as per Fair Adangal. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.11192 of 2012, the petitioners filed application in Form VI(A) under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act and the 5th respondent Tahsildar, Srikahalasti issued an endorsement stating that the land claimed is situated in Gollapalle Reserve Forest and the S.R.file No.432/15(1)/60/ PN/KHT, dated 31.12.1961 is a non-existing one and the same is a fabricated and bogus one and the said file was not received from the Defunct settlement Officer, Nellore after the disbandment and therefore the request of the petitioner was rejected and has drawn the attention of this Court to the said orders placed on record. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that, assailing the same, the petitioners filed appeal and the same was disposed of directing the 5th respondent to examine the issue at his level. Accordingly, the case was taken on file and when the case was kept in abeyance for want of certain information, the petitioners filed W.P.No.31828 of 2018 and the same was disposed of directing the 5th respondent to take steps for implementation of the orders of the 3rd respondent, if not challenged in accordance with law. Thereafter, the 5th respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners on the grounds that the subject land is classified as Adavi and that the documentary evidences submitted by the petitioners are fabricated and created documents. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners, basing on the fabricated and created documents want to grab vast extent of the land that too a reserve forest land, exclusion of which from Forest block can only be done with the permission of Government of India as per the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that, during 2007, an extent of Ac.151 of land in Sy.No.1 was granted as DKT pattas to 92 beneficiaries including the families of the present writ petitioners. If really, the petitioners were having ryotwari pattas, they would not have agreed for the grant of assignments in their names. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that, during 2007, an extent of Ac.151 of land in Sy.No.1 was granted as DKT pattas to 92 beneficiaries including the families of the present writ petitioners. If really, the petitioners were having ryotwari pattas, they would not have agreed for the grant of assignments in their names. Further, K.Polaiah has given a statement before the Forest Settlement Authorities for demarcation of the line of Gollapalli Reserve Forest which was very close to the village and to un-reserve sufficient land for communal purpose and considering his request Ac.600-00 of land was excluded. If the said K.Polaiah, who is one of the ancestors of the petitioners, was granted Ryotwari patta in the year 1961 he would have filed the same before the Forest Settlement Officer in the year 1981 itself when he made the representation. None filing of the patta improbablises the grant of ryotwari patta as alleged and proves false the allegations made in the writ petition. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned Government Pleader has relied on the judgment in Director of Settlements, Hyd vs. Neerupaka Rama Krishna, 2001 LawSuit(AP) 988. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, in the year 1920, a joint patta was granted in the name of their grandfathers in the Estate Dittam account vide patta No.216. As per which, joint patta was granted vide S.R.No.432/ 15(1)/60/PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 under Section 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 to an extent of 600 acres in old survey No.1, Re-survey No.1P of Ramanujapalle village of Srikalahasthi Mandal of Chittoor District. No appeal has been preferred against the orders of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer and hence the same has become final. Though obligated, the revenue authorities did not carry out necessary mutations and subsequent amendments and they kept the classification of the land as ‘Adavi Poramboke’ in the revenue records. 8. No appeal has been preferred against the orders of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer and hence the same has become final. Though obligated, the revenue authorities did not carry out necessary mutations and subsequent amendments and they kept the classification of the land as ‘Adavi Poramboke’ in the revenue records. 8. Whereas the respondents questioned the very validity of the Ryotawari patta dated 31.08.1961 said to have been issued in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners for the reasons - the name of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor is wrongly noted in the top of the orders as Sri M.P.Luka, instead of Sri M.P. Luke; there are several spelling mistakes which will never be in the orders in those olden days, the seal will be affixed in last page only but not on every page as seen from the orders and that too the seal of the Assistant Settlement Officer was affixed on the orders said to have been passed by Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor and no such file was handed over to the Collector’s office, Chittoor after disbandment of the post. It is their further contest in this regard is that, according to Estate Abolition Act, 1948, Assistant Settlement Officers were appointed as Settlement Authority to decide cases but not Additional Assistant Settlement Officer. Thus, the claim made by the petitioners that the Ryotwari patta was issued by Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, who was not at all authorized to issue such pattas, cannot be countenanced. 9. Further, it is the specific stand of the respondents that the land claimed by the petitioners is classified as ‘Adavi poramboke’ in all relevant records and hence it has to be treated as Forest land and hence the same cannot be used for any non-forestry purposes without following the procedure for de-servation prescribed in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 10. A perusal of the material available on record would show that the Commissioner of Appeals vide orders dated 25.07.2013, has directed the Joint Collector to examine the issue at his level, after verifying the documents produced by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows : “It is also observed that, the party/petitioner has filed certified copies of the settlement patta granted to his ancestors under Section 15(1) of the Estates Abolition Act. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows : “It is also observed that, the party/petitioner has filed certified copies of the settlement patta granted to his ancestors under Section 15(1) of the Estates Abolition Act. The fact of issuance of the certified copy has not been disputed. Grant of patta was not disputed. The grant of patta has not been challenged by way of an appeal. So the patta bas become final. The Tahsildar has only said that since the lands have been notified as Reserve Forest under Section 4 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967, the said patta cannot be implemented, which stand seems to be not correct. There is no reason why it was not implemented. Patta was said to have been granted in 1961. Lands were notified under Section 4 of A.P. Forest Act, 1968 in the year 1969. Grant of patta creates right in the grantee from the date on which the notification taking over the Estate takes effect. This aspect has not been examined properly. So the Joint Collector, Chittoor is directed to examine this issue at his level after verifying the documents produced by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.” 11. The Writ Petition vide W.P.No.31828 of 2018 filed by the petitioners to declare the action of the fifth respondent (Joint Collector) in not acting upon the application vide Roc.F1/4548/2012 pursuant to the above orders of the Commissioner of Appeals, was disposed of, directing the Joint Collector, Chittoor, to take steps for implementation of the order of the Commissioner, Appeal, dated 25.07.2013, if not challenged, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within the period of two or three months, from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order. 12. Pursuant to the above orders, the impugned orders came to be passed by the fifth respondent- Joint Collector. 13. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the file relating to S.R.No.432/15/1(1)/60 PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 under which the ancestors of the petitioners were granted ryotwari Patta under Section 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, was not listed in the list of S.R. files received from the defunct settlement officer. 13. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the file relating to S.R.No.432/15/1(1)/60 PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 under which the ancestors of the petitioners were granted ryotwari Patta under Section 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, was not listed in the list of S.R. files received from the defunct settlement officer. Further, the order submitted by the petitioners was issued by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, who was not authorized to issue such orders and such a power was vested in Assistant Settlement Officer but not in Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor. Moreover, in the SR order it was stated that the subject land was granted by Kalavagunta Estate Manager in favour of ancestors of the petitioners in Dittam account vide Patta No.216, whereas the land is in Srikalahasti Estate but not in Kalavagunta Estate. Thus, the SR order was fabricated to grab vast extent of government land. 14. The further ground that weighed with the fifth respondent to reject the petitioners’ claim is that since the subject land is classified as ‘Adavi’, the Settlement Officer, Chittoor has no jurisdiction for grant of Ryotwari Patta for Communal land. Further, K.Polaiah, who is ancestor of some of the petitioners, had given a statement before the Forest Settlement authorities for demarcation of the line of Gollapalli Reserve Forest and accordingly Ac.600-00 was excluded vide orders dated 09.03.1982. However, the said K.Polaiah did not file or state anything regarding ryotwari patta before Forest Settlement Authorities in the year 1981. Thus, this falsifies issuance of any ryotwari patta as alleged by the petitioners and that by creating false and fabricated documents they now intend to grab the Forest land. 15. The petitioners laid emphasis on the orders of the commissioner appeals, correspondence of the District Judge and District Collector. The orders of commissioner, appeals clearly states that, grant of patta was not disputed and the same having not been challenged by way of an appeal, has become final. It is emanated from the impugned order that the then District Collector had addressed to the District Judge Court/Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore in the subject matter and the District Judge, Nellore has commented as follows : “Returned:- 1. the case of this Court in which document issued by the Superintendent of Copies, District Court, Nellore is not furnished. 2. It is emanated from the impugned order that the then District Collector had addressed to the District Judge Court/Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore in the subject matter and the District Judge, Nellore has commented as follows : “Returned:- 1. the case of this Court in which document issued by the Superintendent of Copies, District Court, Nellore is not furnished. 2. The document in your office with original in this Court is not enclosed in the letter.” 16. A glance at the above makes it clear that the copy of the document genuineness of which was sought to be confirmed was not sent to the District Judge and hence the request made by the then District Collector has been returned for want of submission of the said document. 17. However, the fifth respondent, basing on the above return endorsement came to a conclusion that no appeal on the SR file bearing No.432/15(1)/60PN/KGHT dated 31.08.1961 was filed before the Estate Abolition Tribunal and the copy submitted by the applicant is a created one for the purpose of this Case. It is very surprising to note that how an officer of the cadre joint collector could translate the return endorsement to mean that no such document has been issued by the concerned authority of the District Court. 18. The letter addressed by the then District Collector, Chittor to the District Judge, Nellore vide Roc.F1/4548/2012 dated 12.06.2014 and the response thereof of the District Judge, Nellore sent to the District Collector, Chittoor vide C.No.7514/2012 dated 16.07.2014 are placed on record. A perusal of the same would indicate that the District Collector Chittoor has requested the District Judge, Nellore to confirm the genuineness of the xerox copy of the order of Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor in S.R.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT dated 31.8.1961. The reply given by the District Judge, Nellore is extracted hereunder : “A copy of the order of Addl.Asst.Settlement Officer, Chittoor in S.R.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT dated 31.08.191 has been issued to the applicant Sri K.Polaiah, S/o. Ramaiah on his request by the Superintendent of Copies, District Judge, Nellore is a genuine one. Copy of the said order is herewith enclosed.” 19. From the above, it is evident that the xerox copy of the order of Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor in S.R.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT dated 31.8.1961 relied on by the petitioners is confirmed to be a genuine document having been issued by the concerned. 20. Copy of the said order is herewith enclosed.” 19. From the above, it is evident that the xerox copy of the order of Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor in S.R.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT dated 31.8.1961 relied on by the petitioners is confirmed to be a genuine document having been issued by the concerned. 20. The record further discloses that a similar letter has also been addressed to the Commissioner & Director of Settlement, A.P., Hyderabad by the District Collector, Chittoor vide letter dated 12.06.2014 and the reply dated 09.07.2014 received in that regard is extracted below : “I invite attention to the references cited. One Sri K. Polaiah, S/o. Ramaiah applied this office for issue certified copy of the order of Addl. Asst. Settlements Officer, Chittoor in S.R.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT, Dt. 31.08.1961. A copy of the said order in the reference cited filed by the applicant is genuine one issued on him through this office respectively.” 21. The response received from the District Judge, Nellore as well as the Commissioner & Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, amply make it clear that the copy of the order relied on by the petitioners is a genuine document. 22. The reasoning given by the fifth respondent for concluding the document relied on by the petitioners to be a fabricated and created one is not based on the material available on record, particularly the letters referred to above. Thus, the reasons so given by the fifth respondent are not only irrational but also perverse. 23. The next contention as to the classification of the land as “ADAVI”, the order of the commissioner of appeals makes the things very clear that the Patta was granted in 1961, much before the lands were notified under Section 4 of A.P. Forest Act, 1968 in the year 1969. 24. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that this Court vide orders dated 20.10.2018 passed in W.P.No.31828 of 2018 directed the fifth respondent to take steps for implementation of the orders of the Commissioner, Appeal, if not challenged. 25. In the orders, the Commissioner of Appeals has clearly observed that the patta has become final. It is further observed that the patta was said to have been granted in 1961, whereas the land has been notified as Forest Reserve under Section 4 of A.P.Foreset Act in 1967 in the year 1969. 25. In the orders, the Commissioner of Appeals has clearly observed that the patta has become final. It is further observed that the patta was said to have been granted in 1961, whereas the land has been notified as Forest Reserve under Section 4 of A.P.Foreset Act in 1967 in the year 1969. Grant of patta created rights in the grantee from the date of which the notification taking over the Estate takes effect. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred assailing the orders of the Commissioner. However, the fifth respondent did not take into consideration the orders of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad while passing the impugned orders. 26. In view of the observations referred to above, the citation relied on by the learned Government Pleader is not applicable to be facts of the present case. 27. In view of the above, since the fifth respondent has misconstrued the letters received from the District Judge, Nellore and the Commissioner & Director of Settlement, A.P., Hyderabad and further did not properly dealt with the observations made by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, the impugned orders require interference of this Court and they are liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the fifth respondent for deciding the matter afresh taking into consideration the observations made above. 28. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the 5th respondent bearing No.F1/4548/2012 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 5th respondent with a direction to decide the matter afresh by considering the true purport of the letters of the District Judge, Nellore dated 16.07.2014 vide C.No.7514/2012 and also the letter of the Commissioner & Director of Settlement, A.P., Hyderabad dated 09.07.2014 bearing Ref.No.G1/96/2011 and also by taking into consideration the observations made by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad in his orders dated 25.07.2013. The fifth respondent is further directed to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. 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.