ORDER : B Krishna Mohan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed to call for the records pertaining to the land in Sy.No.285/3 and the contiguous land before sub-division and to know the truth or otherwise after sub-division etc. facts and to order to grant patta to the petitioner in Sy.No.285/3 for an extent of Ac.1-75 cents situated in Chiguruwada Uttarapu Kandriga Village within Tirupathi Mandal and to set aside the proceedings in R.P.No.323/87/H1, dated 10.08.2002 and R.P.No.1384/02, dated 1.01.2018. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3 rd respondent passed an order in R.P.No.110/87/H1 filed by the Collector, Chittoor against one Smt. Apthiri Munemma and R.P.No.323/87/H1 filed by the petitioner against the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi (Rural) Mandal by disposing of the same together rejecting the Revision Petition of the petitioner dated 10.08.2002 by setting aside the order of the 4 th respondent in S.R.No.108/11(a)/80 CTR dated 20.01.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2 nd respondent and vide impugned order in proceedings No.R.P.P3/1384/2002 dated 11.01.2018, the same was dismissed. Hence this writ petition. Both the authorities did not consider the grounds raised by the petitioner. The said authorities ought to have adverted to the issues whether Smt. Apthiri Munemma/respondent therein was inducted into possession of ryoti land prior to 01.07.1945 with reference to pre-abolition records. The authorities below failed to appreciate the takeed and cist receipts filed by the petitioner herein. The respondent/Mandal Revenue Officer therein failed to produce any pre-abolition records of undoubted authenticity. The petitioner/Revision Petitioner therein filed the following documents before the 3 rd respondent which are as under: i) a) Takeed dt.11.10.1937 b) Xerox copy of takeed dt.11.10.1937 certified by the High Court. ii) a) Certified copies of rent receipt dt.05.06.1942. b) Xerox copy of rent receipt dt.05.06.1942 certified by the High Court. iii) a) Certified copies of rent receipt dt.18.07.1945. b) Xerox copy of rent receipt dt.18.07.1945 certified by the High Court. iv) a) Certified copies of rent receipt dt.03.07.1949. b) Xerox copy of rent receipt dt.03.07.1949 certified by the High Court. v) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.05.02.1986. vi) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.08.08.1974. vii) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.14.07.1975. viii) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.24.06.1977. ix) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.26.05.1984. iv) a) Certified copies of rent receipt dt.03.07.1949. b) Xerox copy of rent receipt dt.03.07.1949 certified by the High Court. v) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.05.02.1986. vi) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.08.08.1974. vii) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.14.07.1975. viii) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.24.06.1977. ix) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.26.05.1984. x) Certified copy of cist receipt dt.05.02.1986. xi) Xerox copy of judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.33/95 filed against O.S.No.34/86 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. xii) Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.814/1985 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Tirupati. The certified copies of cist receipts dated 05.02.1986, 08.08.1974, 14.07.1975, 24.06.1977, 26.05.1984 and 05.02.1986 are relating to the post- abolition period. As stated supra, without considering those documents, the above said impugned order was passed by the 3 rd respondent dated 10.08.2002. Later, the 2 nd respondent also did not consider the said documents and dismissed the Revision Petition of the petitioner vide the above said impugned order dated 11.01.2018 holding that the petitioner is not cultivating the subject land either before or after the E.A. Act, 1948 came into force. The Revision Petitioner failed to establish the prerequisites of Section 11(a) of the E.A. Act, 1948. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the 4 th respondent submits that the 4 th respondent cancelled all the subdivisions in the land in Sy.No.285 and restored the same as Swarnamukhi River and the then Tahsildar cancelled all the entries in village accounts and restored it as Swarnamukhi River. The said orders of the 4 th respondent was confirmed by the 3 rd respondent in R.P.No.24/1010-E dated 05.03.2020 on the Revision filed by Smt. V.Yasodhamma and others. As of now, the order passed in 9/11(a)/88 dated 24.12.2009 has attained finality and it is in force as it was upheld in R.P.No.2/1010-E dated 05.03.2020. On the claim of Smt. Suseelamma and others for the land in Sy.No.285/2 of Chiguruwada Utharapu kandriga Village, the 4 th respondent passed similar orders vide S.R.No.20/11(a)/87 dated 01.09.2009 declaring the entire land in Sy.No.285 as Swarnamukhi River. Thus the subject land is classified as River and it fell under section 3(b) of A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Thus the subject land is classified as River and it fell under section 3(b) of A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The said provision clearly emphasizes as follows: “the entire estate including the minor inams post settlement or pre settlement included in the assets of the Zamindari estate at the permanent settlement of that estate; all communal lands and porambokes; other non ryothi lands; waste lands; pasture lands; lanks ands; forest; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers; and streams; irrigation works, fisheries; and ferries, shall stand transferred to the Govt., and vest in them, free from all encumbrances.” In the instant case, the provisions of Section 3(b) of A.P.E.A. Act, 1948 and prior to it Section 3(16) of Madras Estate Land Act, 1908 are applicable and the land also fell under BSO15(4). Since the Settlement Officer/4 th respondent failed to follow the provisions of law, valuable water body in which the public interest is involved was injured, hence the purported patta was set aside in revision by the Commissioner of Appeals. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.01.2018 in R.P.No.1384/02 does not suffer from any infirmity or lacunae which was passed in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Estate Abolition Act, 1948. The above said irregularities committed by the 4 th respondent were noticed and the patta was set aside by allowing the appeal passed by the 3 rd respondent as stated supra. No relief can be granted for the petitioner in this case. 5. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, upon consideration of the rival submissions made, upon careful reading of the impugned orders of the 2 nd respondent dated 11.01.2018 & the order of the 3 rd respondent dated 10.08.2002 and upon consideration of the material available on the record, it is clear that the above said revision petitions were filed before the 3 rd respondent against the order passed by the 4 th respondent dated 20.01.1987 by the Collector, Chittoor against Smt. Apthiri Munemma and by the petitioner against the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi (Rural) Mandal in R.P.Nos.110/87/H1 & 323/87/H1 respectively. The Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad observed that the land in Sy.No.285/3 measuring an extent of Ac.15-70 cents is classified as “Swarnamukhi River Poramboke” as per village accounts of Chiguruwada Uttarapu Kandriga and remanded the case in R.P.No.8/84, dated 29.01.1985. The Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad observed that the land in Sy.No.285/3 measuring an extent of Ac.15-70 cents is classified as “Swarnamukhi River Poramboke” as per village accounts of Chiguruwada Uttarapu Kandriga and remanded the case in R.P.No.8/84, dated 29.01.1985. The land claimed in Sy.No.285/3 was classified as “Swarnamukhi River Poramboke” and the land measuring Ac.15-70 cents in Sy.No.285/3 of the schedule village was subsequently sub-divided and denoted as under: Sy.No. Extent (Ac. Cts.) Classification 285/3 5-73 Swarnamukhi River Poramboke 285/4 0-60 -do 285/5 1-32 Patta 285/6 2-60 -do 285/7 5-45 -do 6. In pursuance of the orders of the Collector, Chittoor, dated 11.02.1982, necessary changes have been carried out in the village accounts in respect of Sy.No.285/3 and as such either the revision petitioner or Smt. Apthiri Munemma will not have any right or title over the land in Sy.No.285/3. During the survey and settlement operations, the land with an extent of Ac.18-65 cents in Sy.No.285 of Chiguruwada Uttarapu Kandriga village was declared as “Swarnamukhi River Poramboke” and the said classification was never challenged either by the petitioner or by Smt. Apthiri Munemma and therefore the classification attained finality and also the said extent of land was further sub-divided as under: Sy.No. Extent (Ac. Cts.) Classification 285/1 0-80 Patta 285/2 2-15 River Poramboke 285/3 15-30 Swarnamukhi River Poramboke 7. Since the land in Sy.No.285/3 was classified as “Swarnamukhi River water course poramboke” and it is a communal land vested with the Government for all purposes and the said classification has been declared way back during the survey and settlement operations and the said classification still reflects in the village accounts of Chiguruwada Uttarapu Kandriga and in the Field Measurement Book, the 4 th respondent has no authority to grant any ryotwari patta to a communal land which is vested with the Government and when the permission of the Collector concerned is required under the provisions of E.L.Act, 1908 before granting any ryotwari patta and it appears no such permission has been sought by the 4 th respondent before granting any ryotwari patta in favour of Smt. Apthiri Munemma. 8. That apart, the petitioner and Smt. Apthiri Munemma failed to establish any possession and enjoyment of the land much less on the date of notification of the estate. 8. That apart, the petitioner and Smt. Apthiri Munemma failed to establish any possession and enjoyment of the land much less on the date of notification of the estate. The petitioner as well as Smt. Apthiri Munemma failed to establish the possession of ryoti land prior to 01.07.1945 with reference to pre-abolition records. The paimash and settlement record do not reveal the names of either the petitioner or Smt. Apthiri Munemma for possession and enjoyment of the land. Except relying upon the Xerox copies of takeed dated 11.10.1937 and rent receipt dated 05.06.1942, the petitioner/other claimant Smt. Apthiri Munemma did not file any original documents relating to pre-abolition period and there is no documentary evidence to prove that the paimash No.3 as noted in the said takeed correlates to Sy.No.285/3. At the time of survey and settlement operations, the classification of the land was noted as “River Poramboke”. It amplifies that the land is not ryoti and the petitioner and the other claimant as stated above, could not prove by means of documentary evidence that they have been lawfully inducted into possession of the land prior to 01.07.1945 and they have been in continuous possession of the land. 9. Since the petitioner and the other claimant failed to establish their possession of the subject land and lawful inductment into possession prior to 01.07.1945, no relief can be granted for them and as such both the authorities i.e., the respondent Nos.2 and 3 rightly rejected their claims by way of orders dated 11.01.2018 and 10.08.2002 respectively. The petitioner much belatedly with delay and latches filed this writ petition assailing the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 11.01.2018 without explaining the delay and latches on sufficient grounds. Even on that sole ground, this writ petition has to be rejected. However as discussed above, both on merits and delay & latches this writ petition fails. Further, this Court does not see any infirmity in the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.