ORDER
P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.
1. These two writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 4th January, 2002 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos. 22862 of 2001 and 4038 of 2000.
Writ Appeal No. 914 of 2002 is filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam, the petitioner in W.P. No. 22862 of 2001, while Writ Appeal No. 958 of 2002 is filed by the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, and the Mandal Revenue Officer (Rural), Visakhapatnam, - the respondents in W.P. No. 4038 of 2000. The Petitioners in W.P. No. 4038 of 2000, being the Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 22862 of 2001, are the Respondents before us in both the appeals. In addition, the Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 22862 of 2001 is arrayed as Respondent No. 4 in W.A. No. 914 of 2002.
2. By the common order dated 4th January, 2002, the learned Judge allowed W.P. No. 4038 of 2000, directing the respondents therein to mutate the names of the Writ Petitioners in the revenue records, giving effect to the patta granted to their ancestors in the year 1959 and dismissed W.P. No. 22862 of 2001 filed by the authorities challenging the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in proceedings No. P1/1681/2000, dated 10.05.2001, being an order passed in connection with the same patta.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the Appellant(s) and Sri C. Kodandaram, Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 in both the writ appeals.
Firstly, we propose to take up W.A. No. 958 of 2000 arising out of W.P. No. 4038 of 2000. The case of the Respondents 1 to 3, being the petitioners in the said writ petition, was that they are the absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac.4-28 cents covered by R.S. Nos. 140/4 to 140/12 of Chinagadila Village, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam, claiming title and ownership under Patta No. 85. The said land is said to have been carved out of old Sy.No.20 of Chinagadila Village, which was assigned by the erstwhile Rajah of Vizianagaram during the years 1911 to 1913. It is their case that their common ancestors, viz., Kanchurbariki Pothi alias Muthigadu and others were inducted into possession of the said lands under the said orders of assignment.
4. As no patta was initially communicated to them, they filed an application under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') for grant of ryotwari patta. It is stated that in the course of the Section 11(a) proceedings, it was revealed that the patta in respect of the subject lands was granted to their ancestors long ago and accordingly they, having obtained certified copies of the same, applied for withdrawal of their petition under Section 11(a) of the Act. In this regard, they have also stated that the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, passed a detailed order dated 30.10.1999 holding that the patta was validly granted in their favour long ago and that they were in possession of the subject property.
5. Whether the findings in the said order dated 30.10.1999 would enure to their benefit, in view of the fact that the said Order culminated in the withdrawal of the petition under Section 11(a) of the Act, will be dealt with separately hereinafter.
Continuing with the narration of the facts as reflected in the respondents 1 to 3/writ petitioners' affidavit, it is stated that thereafter they made several applications, being applications dated 10.11.1997, 06.09.1999, 05.01.2000 and 14.01.2000 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records. It is their complaint that in spite of the voluminous evidence, including the Patta No. 85 granted in their favour, establishing their title and possession, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) failed to carry out the mutation of their names in the revenue records, constraining them to approach this Court by way of the writ petition.
6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) filed a counter-affidavit in the said Writ Petition stating to the following effect:
Chinagadila Village of Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal was a Zamindari Estate of the erstwhile Vizianagaram Samsthanam, which was notified and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act. The estate is said to have been notified on 07.09.1949 and the settlement rates were said to have been introduced on 01.07.1959. The subject lands situated in Sy. Nos. 140/4 to 140/12 admeasuring Ac.4-28 cents, corresponding to Old Sy. No. 20/2 Part of Chinagadila Village, form part of the said estate and are classified as Assessed Waste Dry as per the revenue records. It is admitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) that during the course of the Section 11(a) enquiry initiated by the Respondents 1 to 3 herein, his predecessor-in-office had produced a bunch of rough pattas, including Rough Patta Nos. 84, 85 and 77 pertaining to the Respondents 1 to 3's predecessors-in-title and their claim over the land in Sy. Nos. 140/1 to 140/12.
7. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) attacked the findings recorded in the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) also attacked the validity and genuineness of the rough patta bearing No. 85 on various grounds.
8. He stated that the ancestors of the Respondents 1 to 3 herein were in fact granted ryotwari pattas for their holding in respect of old Sy. No. 20/4 corresponding to R.S. Nos. 140/1, 140/3 and 140/2 under the Rough Pattas bearing Nos. 84 and 77 respectively. According to him, the Respondents 1 to 3's ancestors were not entitled to any other holding in respect of the balance lands in Old Sy. No. 20 corresponding to R.S. Nos. 140/4 to 140/12. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) claims that the ancestors of the Respondents 1 to 3, and thereafter, the Respondents 1 to 3 have been in possession of the subject lands as encroachers. This encroachment is said to have been made by them in the year 1958.
9. He also made reference to the Revision filed by him against the order dated 30.10.1999, before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, which was said to be pending as on the date of filing of the W.P. No. 4038 of 2000, and accordingly he stated that the Respondents 1 to 3 herein were not entitled to seek mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of Government land.
10. As stated supra, the order of the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 30.10.1999 passed on the application of the Respondents 1 to 3 herein under Section 11(a) of the Act culminated in the withdrawal of the petition. However, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, chose to pass a detailed and lengthy order recording various findings before concluding that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The respondents 1 to 3 herein cannot therefore seek to place any reliance upon or draw support from the findings recorded in the said order. We are of the considered opinion that the findings in such an order have no binding effect and do not have any value whatsoever in law.
11. Be that as it may, the said order throws valuable light on various documents and material, which were produced by the authorities themselves during the course of the enquiry, that have a bearing on the present case. It is to be noticed that the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed land revenue receipts dating back to the year 1917 and extending upto 1966 in evidence of their continued possession over the lands. They also produced the copy of the Patta No. 38 granted by the Rajah of Vizianagaram in favour of their ancestors. It appears that the survey number is not mentioned in the land revenue receipts produced by the respondents 1 to 3, which only make reference to Patta No. 38. Similarly, the details of the land granted under Patta No. 38 were also found to be illegible.
12. However, the copy of the 'A' Register of Chinagadila Village produced by the then Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural), reflects the name of Kanchurbariki Pothi, the ancestor of the respondents 1 to 3, as against the extent of land admeasuring Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.20/3, while the 'A Register for the Fasli Year 1350, i.e. the year 1940, reflected his name as against the extent of land admeasuring Ac. 1-38 cents in Sy. No. 20/4. Similar is the entry in the land register. The Settlement Fair Adangal reflects the name of Kanchubariki people only against the land in R.S. Nos. 140/1, 140/2, 140/3; while the lands in R.S. Nos. 140/4 to 140/12 are shown as 'Banjar' lands i.e. Government Lands. The Adangals for Fasli Years 1355 and 1363 i.e., 1945 and 1953, show that part of the land covered by Sy. No. 20/2 is under the encroachment of the forefathers of the respondents 1 to 3. Similarly, the Settlement Register in Form-VIII which is said to have been prepared during the conduct of settlement operations and was finalized in 1958 shows that the land covered by Sy. No. 20/2 Part is under the encroachment of the respondents 1 to 3's family and the age of the encroachment is noted as an old one, evidenced by cultivation of dry crops. The recent Adangal for Fasli Year 1389 i.e. 1979 also reflects the same position, inasmuch as the land in Sy. Nos. 140/4 to 140/12 is shown to be under the encroachment of Kanchubariki family, duly noting the same to be an old encroachment. The Re-survey and Settlement Register of Chinagadila Village also speaks to the effect that the land in Sy. Nos. 140/4 to 140/12 was carved out from old Sy. No. 20/2 and that the land in the said survey numbers was under the encroachment of the Kanchubariki family. The encroached extent is stated to be Ac.4-28 cents, which tallies with the extent claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the present proceedings.
13. The above records reflect the possession of the ancestors of Respondents 1 to 3 over the subject lands, though the nature of the same is indicated to be an encroachment in some of the records. This aspect seems to have been put to rest by the issue of a rough patta as stated hereunder.
14. The Authorities also produced the Rough Patta Register in the course of the Section 11(a) enquiry, wherein the rough pattas bearing Nos. 77, 84 and 85 were found, relating to the lands in Sy. Nos. 140/1 to 140/12 of Chinagadila Village. The rough pattas bearing Nos. 84 and 77 pertain to the lands in Sy. Nos. 140/1 to 140/3 and are admitted to be genuine and valid by the authorities. Thereby, the claim of the Respondents 1 to 3 over those lands was substantiated. The rough patta No. 85 is with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.4-28 cents in Sy. Nos. 140/4 to 140/12 and stood in the names of the respondents 1 to 3's ancestors. It is on the basis of this rough patta that the respondents 1 to 3 herein, having obtained certified copies thereof, withdrew their petition filed under Section 11(a) of the Act. The order dated 30.10.1999 also evidences the fact that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), contested this move on their part by contending that the said rough patta was not genuine and that it was a manipulated and fake one. However, the Joint Collector and. Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, recorded in his order dated 30.10.1999 that he did not have the jurisdiction to examine the rough patta issued by an equivalent authority and that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) had an option to prefer an appeal before the Director and Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. With the said observation, the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, dismissed as withdrawn the petition filed under Section 11(a) of the Act.
15. It is an admitted fact that against this order, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), preferred a Revision under Section 5(2) of the Act before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and by an order dated 15.11.2000, the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, entertained the Revision, overruling the contention raised by the respondents 1 to 3 herein with regard to its maintainability. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 1 to 3 preferred a Revision before the Commissioner of Appeals, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, under Section 7(d) of the Act, and by an order dated 10.05.2001 the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the Revision Petition holding that the Director of Settlements erred in entertaining the Revision Petition filed under Section 5(2) of the Act. The said proceedings are the subject matter of the other Writ Appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 914 of 2002, and will be dealt with separately hereinafter.
16. In so far as the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 over the land admeasuring Ac.4-28 cents in Sy. Nos. 140/4 to 140/12 of Chinagadila Village, basing upon the rough patta No. 85, is concerned, it is relevant to note that the authorities themselves admit the genuineness of the rough pattas bearing Nos. 77 and 84, where under the respondents 1 to 3 laid claim to the land in Sy. Nos. 140/1 to 140/3. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 3 herein were paid the land acquisition compensation in respect of the land in these survey numbers when the same was acquired for a public purpose. It is therefore to be examined as to how far the claim of the authorities that rough patta No. 85 alone is a fake and manipulated is tenable, once they accept the genuineness of the other two rough pattas, viz., Rough Patta Nos. 77 and 84. All the more so, when they have not chosen to initiate any steps whatsoever to cancel the said rough patta or get it declared a nullity.
17. The learned Government Pleader contended that the respondents 1 to 3 were not entitled to seek mutation of their names in the revenue records basing upon the rough patta. According to him, the rough patta is not a document of title and in the light of the fact that separate proceedings were initiated in the form of a Revision Petition for examining the validity of this rough patta, their prayer for mutation cannot be entertained. However, as noted above, the Revision Petition filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) stood dismissed under the Order of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 10.05.2001. This argument is therefore no longer available to the learned Government Pleader, subject to our consideration of the validity of the Order dated 10.05.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals in the other Writ Appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 914 of 2002.
The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 herein, on the other hand, argued that in the light of the rough pattas granted as long back as in the year 1959, it was not open to the authorities to claim that the respondents 1 to 3 did not have title and possession over the subject lands. They must accordingly be recognized as the lawful and valid titleholders over the property, he contends, and carrying out mutation in their favour in the revenue records would be a facet of their lawful ownership and possession.
18. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in R. Elamalai Chetty v. R. Rathnavelu Chetty Alias Ratna Chetty 1971 Andhra Weekly Reporter-2-193 is relied upon in connection with the value and status of rough pattas. In the said case, the Division Bench was concerned with the question as to whether the rough patta in that case was one issued under Section 11 of the Act. The said judgment evidences the fact that for carrying out the ryotwari settlement of an estate under Section 22 of the Act, the settlement authorities were in the practice of following the old procedure prescribed in the Manual of Instructions for conducting resettlement in the Madras Presidency, issued in the year 1951. A copy of the said Manual had been placed before the Court in that case. The Division Bench, after a comprehensive analysis of the procedure laid down in the said Manual, recorded that after rough pattas were issued under the provisions thereof, a hearing would be conducted upon the objections raised and that the said rough patta hearing was to be conducted atleast three weeks after the issuance of the rough pattas. After hearing such objections, orders were to be passed and communicated to all the parties concerned. Fair accounts were to be prepared carrying out the changes in the land register and the rough chitta, on the basis of such orders. The fair accounts were then to be sent to the revenue department for preparation of the resettlement register. Basing upon this analysis, the Division Bench held that the rough patta issued under the said Manual is not one issued under Section 11 of the Act and is therefore, not a document of title or one constituting evidence of title. The Bench held that it is only a step taken in the process of carrying out resettlement operations and it was not envisaged under the said regulatlons that after hearing of objections, a regular patta would be granted. The entire process only enabled the settlement authorities to carry out the necessary changes in the land register and the rough chitta, and for preparation of the resettlement register. On the facts of that case, the Division Bench held that the patta therein had not been granted under Section 11 of the Act, and accordingly, the rough patta granted in that case did not have the effect of conferring exclusive title upon the patta holder.
19. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed rules, in exercise of its rule making power under Section 67(2)(d) of the Act, under G.O.Ms. No. 36, Revenue, dated 21.11.1956. Under the said rules, a time frame was stipulated with regard to the limitation for filing revision petitions against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 11 of the Act. A reference is made therein to the conduct of rough patta objections hearing under the old procedure. Therefore, though there is no mention in Section 11 of the Act with regard to grant of a rough patta, the statutory rules framed under Section 67 as aforestated, recognize and validate the practice adopted under the old procedure with regard to the grant of rough pattas, by providing a revisional remedy against the same. It is pertinent to note that under Section 22(2) of the Act, the Settlement Officer while notifying the ryotwari settlement of the estate, is required to embody the principles adopted in making the ryotwari settlement, including the rate of assessment set out in the resettlement notification. It is therefore manifest that the old procedure with regard to grant of rough pattas for the purpose of finalizing the resettlement register has been assimilated into the procedure to be followed under the Act, be it under Section 11 or Section 22.
20. In the present case, the notification in respect of the settlement rates is said to have been introduced on 01.07.1959, as per the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 4038 of 2000. This notification is obviously one under Section 22 of the Act. The rough patta relied upon by the respondents 1 to 3, being rough patta No. 85, and the rough pattas recognized by the authorities, being rough patta Nos. 77 and 84, appear to have been issued in June, 1959, i.e., just prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 22 in July, 1959. This fact also lends credibility to all the rough pattas aforestated. The judgment in R. Elamalai Chetty's case (1 supra) turned upon the facts of that case and the finding of the Division Bench that the rough patta relied upon therein was not connected to Section 11 of the Act. On the other hand, in the present case the facts as narrated herein above, clearly show a link between the rough pattas granted to the ancestors of the respondents 1 to 3 and the steps taken under the Act. Therefore, the rough patta in the present case cannot be said to be unconnected with Section 11 of the Act. All the more so, in the light of the rules framed by the Government in recognition of rough pattas in connection with Section 11 of the Act. Further, another issue to be considered by us is as to whether it is open to the authorities to seek to unsettle the settled position, insofar as the rough patta granted as long as back in the year 1959 is concerned, and at that, in the proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 to 3. It is also to be noticed that respondents 1 to 3, when they filed W.P. No. 4038 of 2000, only sought mutation of their names in the revenue records and did not seek issuance of a rytowari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. In the present case, we are only called upon to determine as to whether the rough patta No. 85, which remained undisturbed all these years forms a sufficient basis for the request of the respondents 1 to 3 to enter their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands. Keeping in view the fact that the possession of respondents 1 to 3 over the subject lands is not denied and the rough patta No. 85 is evidence of the recognition of this fact by the authorities, we have no doubt that the answer to this query should be in the affirmative. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench in R. Elamalai Chetty's case (1 supra) is of no avail to the authorities.
21. The judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Penta Appala Naidu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad 1973 ALT 246 is also placed before us. This case pertains to the issue of limitation insofar as exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act is concerned. The learned Judge held that there is no limitation prescribed insofar as grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the Act is concerned and for entertaining an application in this regard. This judgment is relied upon to rebut the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that the application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 under Section 11(a) of the Act was belated. However, as the said application was dismissed as withdrawn and the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 is based upon the rough patta granted in favour of their ancestors in the year 1959, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the issue as to whether the respondents 1 to 3 could have filed the petition under Section 11(a) of the Act in the year 1981.
22. The judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Putta, Munilaxmamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1970 APLJ 147 is relied upon for the proposition that the Settlement Officer cannot exercise the power of Revision over the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, who acted as his delegate. The learned Judge struck down the rule framed by the Government bestowing such revisional jurisdiction upon the Settlement Officer. In the present case, the rough patta of 1959 was granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, rightly refused to examine the genuineness of the same, being an equivalent authority, as evidenced by the order dated 30.10.1999. The action of the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam therefore finds support in this judgment.
23. The judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Shaik Kalesha Saheb v. The Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam 1969 APLJ 64 is relied upon to show that the Settlement Officer was not competent to start a de novo suo moto enquiry in respect of a ryotwari patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Similarly, in R. Muniratnam Naidu v. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor 1968 (1) ALT NRC 2, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the Settlement Officer did not have the power of review under Section 11(a) of the Act. These two judgments also support the stand taken by the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, that he could not examine the validity of the rough patta granted in favour of the respondents 1 to 3's ancestors.
24. It is therefore clear that the rough patta No. 85 was granted along with rough patta Nos. 77 and 84 in favour of the respondents 1 to 3's ancestors by the Assistant Settlement Officer under the old procedure, which has been assimilated into the procedure followed under the Act. The rough pattas, including rough patta No. 85 was found to have been confirmed by the then Settlement Officer after the rough patta objection hearing. Upon such confirmation, the rough patta formed the basis for the finalization of the resettlement register and the notification of the ryotwari settlement under Section 22 of the Act. That being the position, it is not open to the authorities to seek to ignore the said rough patta. All the more so, when the authorities admittedly recognized the claim of the respondents 1 to 3's ancestors under the other two rough pattas viz., rough patta Nos. 77 and 84, in respect of the land in Sy. Nos. 140/1 to 140/3. It is utmost pertinent to remember that this rough patta was not produced by the respondents 1 to 3, but came to light from the records produced by the authorities themselves during the course of the Section 11(a) enquiry. This fact attaches a certain level of credibility to the said rough patta and it is not open to the authorities to baldly level allegations against the genuineness of the said patta or state vacuously that the same is manipulated or fake. If at all the authorities are of such opinion, it is not as if they were helpless. It was for them to initiate suitable action in law for obtaining a declaration to that effect. Having failed to do so, it is not open to the authorities to disown the rough patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer as per the prescribed old procedure at this late stage, by making unsubstantiated allegations about its genuineness and validity. As long as the said rough patta remains on record and is not set aside in accordance with law, the authorities are bound to recognize and respect the same and give effect thereto. The authorities are therefore required to give effect to and recognize the rough patta relied upon by the respondents 1 to 3 as long as the same continues to be on record. The respondents 1 to 3 would thus be entitled to seek mutation of their names in the revenue records basing upon the said rough patta and the order of the learned single Judge directing the authorities to do so is lawful and valid. Therefore, this Appeal is devoid of merit and hence, liable to be dismissed.
25. Insofar as the Writ Appeal No. 914 of 2002 is concerned, the same is filed aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P. No. 22862 of 2001. In the said writ petition, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), being the petitioner, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 10.05.2001, whereby the Commissioner of Appeals held that the Director of Settlements erred in entertaining the revision filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) against the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer. It is the case of the appellant that the Commissioner erred in passing the said order as the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 was built upon a bogus and fake rough patta and the Director of Settlements rightly entertained the revision petition so as to examine the same.
26. The learned Government Pleader contended that under the guise of the said rough patta, the respondents 1 to 3 had played a fraud upon the Government and were depriving the Government of its valuable property. A reading of the order dated 10.05.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals would show that the Commissioner correctly observed that the order dated 30.10.1999, which was the subject matter of the revision under Section 5(2) of the Act before the Director of Settlements was not an 'order per se' as, by the said order, the petition filed under Section 11(a) of the Act was only dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, no issue was decided by the said order and no rights were created or extinguished. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the said order was not revisable. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Commissioner of Appeals in this regard. As stated herein above, the findings recorded by the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, in the order dated 30.10.1999 are of no legal effect and do not have any binding or evidentiary value. The import of the order in its entirety, is that the petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 under Section 11(a) of the Act stood dismissed as withdrawn. It had neither the effect of deciding any issue nor the effect of touching upon any right. The appellant herein, therefore, could not have maintained a revision against such an order.
27. The contention that the said revision was filed as the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam had himself authorized the filing of such a revision petition is not valid and correct., A reading of the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, would show that the said authority, while concluding that he had no jurisdiction to examine the patta issued by the same (read equivalent) authority, held that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), had an option to prefer an appeal before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. This observation is with regard to the filing of an appeal against the rough patta itself. It cannot be construed to mean that the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, authorized the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) to file a revision against his own innocuous order dated 30.10.1999. It is relevant to note that till date, the authorities have not taken any steps in furtherance of their allegations of manipulation of and the bogus nature of the rough patta No. 85, relied upon by the respondents 1 to 3. As stated herein above, it was for them to initiate appropriate remedies as were available to them in law, in this regard. The Commissioner in his order dated 10.05.2001 also remarked upon the fact that the rough patta relied upon by the respondents was produced from the custody of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), and accordingly, the presumption would be in support of its validity. All the more so, when the said rough patta is said to have been confirmed after the rough patta objection hearing. This aspect has already been referred to by us herein above and does not need reiteration. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order dated 10.05.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals in his Proceedings No. P1/1681/2000. Consequently, W.A. No. 914 of 2002 is found to be equally devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
28. In the result, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.