Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs L.Ramesh on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.682 of 2022
(Through physical mode)
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati,
Andhra Pradesh and others. ...Appellants
Versus
L.Ramesh,
S/o.Late Doraswamy Chetty,
Aged about 49 years,
Occu: Agriculture,
R/o.18-3-55/E, Khadi Colony,
K.T.Road, Tirupati,
Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh and others. ...Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dt:21.04.2023 (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) This Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.08.2021 in W.P.No.8883 of 2020.
2. Heard Sri B. Seshibhushan Rao, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the Learned 2 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 Additional Advocate General for the Appellants and Sri Ambati Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Erragunta and Karakambadi villages of Renigunta Mandal of Chittoor District were Inam Estates regulated by the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 and the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Estate Abolition Act).
4. The Vendor of the petitioners, numbering 16 persons, in W.P.No.8883 of 2020, had been granted a rough patta, by the settlement officer, in the proceedings instituted to grant a ryothwari patta, under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. The title of the petitioners over the lands held by them in Sy.Nos.167 and 168 of Erragunta village and Sy.Nos.170, 341 and 342 of Karakambadi village, is traced to this rough patta given to their predecessor in title. Writ Petitioners 1 to 3 (in W.P.No.8883 of 2020) had purchased the lands, held by them, in the year 2003-2005 and subsequent mutation of the revenue records in their favour was also carried out and pattedar passbooks were issued to them. Petitioners 1 to 3, obtained No Objection certificate for conversion of their lands from agricultural purpose to non agricultural purpose 3 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 from the Tahsildar Renigunta, under proceedings bearing No. B/799/2004, B/800/2004 and B/801/2004, dated 5.10.2004. Subsequently lay out permissions were given by the Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA), on 20.09.2005, for making a lay out of the said land.
5. At that stage, basing on a newspaper report, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar, Renigunta to put the said lands in the prohibited list and to take possession of the said land. The petitioners moved the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.11327 of 2010 against this action and the said writ petition was allowed on 16.12.2010 with a direction to the Collector to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Joint Collector, acting as the Collector, passed an order on 19.12.2011 declaring that a rough patta does not confer any title and no claim of ownership can be made while the proceedings for grant of ryotwari patta are still pending. On this basis, the above No Objection Certificates and the pattedar pass books, issued in favour of petitioners 1 to 3 were cancelled under section 9 and 12 of the ROR Act, 1971.
6. The petitioners 1 to 3 moved the Government against this order. The Government stayed the orders of the 4 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 Joint Collector and advised the petitioners to move the Commissioner land appeals by way of an appeal/representation. An appeal bearing No. P1/1012/2006, was preferred against this order before the Commissioner of Appeals, who treated the appeal as an appeal under section 7 © of the Estate Abolition Act and dismissed the said appeal on 22.05.2013. The appellate order recorded that the names of the petitioners were recorded in the Adangal on the basis of the rough patta granted in the year 1963 and that the land was classified as wet land. However, the appellate authority took the view that a rough patta does not confer any rights and the land was shown as land which is liable for submersion due to which patta cannot be granted.
7. A Revision Petition was filed, against the order of dismissal of the appeal, to the Government, which was allowed on 25.04.2016, holding that there is a distinction between tank bed land and land which is liable for submergence and that a rough patta does give rights to the holder. The Collector sought a review of this order which was refused by the Government which directed implementation of the order of the Government passed in the revision petition. Due to the efforts of the petitioners, memos and orders had been given on 04.10.2017, 16.11.2017 and 04.06.2018 for implementation of the earlier 5 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 orders dated 25.04.2016. In view of these directions, the Collector passed necessary proceedings in implementation of the above direction and the District Registrar, Tirupati was also directed to delete the property from the prohibition list and the same was deleted.
8. Even prior to these proceedings, The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, after physical inspection of the land, had filed a report dated 29.04.2006 wherein it was stated that the petitions 1 to 3 had raised the level of the land in their possession by one meter height and had constructed a stone wall with cut stone masonry to a length of 850 mtrs with a height of 6 feet to divide their land from the foreshore of the tank and that there was no encroachment by these people into the tank bed in Sy.No.339 where the tank known as „Karakambadi Tank‟ was situated.
9. The Government having earlier directed the implementation of the order dated 25.04.2016, issued a fresh Memo dated 16.03.2020 bearing No.26086/Lands-VIII/2020. In this Memo, the Government took the view that the earlier Memo dated 16.11.2017 seeking implementation of the orders dated 25.04.2016 had been issued without examining the issues, such as the classification of the land in question being "Neetimumpu" 6
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 which would mean the land was a water body and the various Judgments given by this Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Hyderabad Urban Development Authority vs. S.B.Kirloskar1", "Intellectuals forum, Tirupati vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2", "Hinchlal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi3" and "Sarepalli Ramaiah (Died) as per LRS vs. The Collector, Chittoor District4" and withdrew the State Government Memo bearing 26086/EA&AR/A1/2013 dated 16.11.2017 with a further request to the District Collector to protect all water bodies for community purpose and for the citizens of Tirupati town.
10. Aggrieved by the said Memo dated 16.03.2020, the petitioners moved this Court by way of W.P.No.8883 of 2020. A learned single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 04.08.2021, had allowed the said writ petition and set aside the Memo dated 16.03.2020.
11. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Revenue authorities, who are arrayed as respondents in the writ petition have now preferred this Writ Appeal on the ground that the contentions raised by them were not considered in their proper 1 2018 (10) SCJ 609 2 AIR 2006 SC 1350 3 AIR 2001 SC 3215 4 AIR 2019 SC 1706 7 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 perspective by the learned Single Judge. It may also be noted that the grounds raised before the learned Single Judge are also the grounds that are now being raised before this Court.
12. The grounds raised by the appellants can be summarized as follows:
a) The land being claimed by the writ petitioners is Estate Inam land, which stood vested in the government, under the provisions of the Estate Abolitions Act. Such lands can be claimed by the persons in possession, subject to certain conditions and their title can be treated as subsisting and final only upon such persons obtaining ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act. No such ryotwari patta had been given to the vendors of petitioners 1 to 3 through whom title is being traced by the writ petitioners. The said vendor had only obtained a rough patta which has no statutory basis and cannot be the basis for any claim over the land. The appellants rely upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of R.Elamalai Chetty vs. R.Ratnavelu Chetty5.
5
1971 (2) Andhra Weekly reporter 193 8 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022
b) The land in question, is situated in an area which is categorized as "Karakambadi Cheruvu Neetimumpu"
which requires the said land to be treated as tank bed area of the said tank and no ryotwari patta can be granted in relation to such land which vests in the government, on account of the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah & Ors., vs. District Collector, Chittoor6.
c) The lands shown as "Neetimumpu" lands would also have to be treated as part of tank bed lands under para 16(1) of the A.P. Board of Revenue Standing Orders and as such, the aforesaid Judgments would apply.
d) The present proceedings traced their origin to the order of the Joint Collector, Chittoor in proceedings F1/6587/2005 dated 19.12.2011, under Sections 9 and 12 of the ROR act 1971 against which no appeal lies. The petitioners have not filed any petition challenging the said order and as such, the petitioners have no claim over the land.
e) The Commissioner Appeals, had rejected the appeal of the petitioners against which there is no provision for 6 (2019) 4 SCC 500 9 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 revision under any of the acts and consequently the proceedings of the government in the revision petition filed against such orders of the Commissioner are clearly untenable and void. Consequently withdrawal of such void orders by the government under the impugned proceedings dated 16.03.2020 would be valid and the same cannot be treated as being without jurisdiction.
13. The writ petitioners had in turn raised various issues before the learned Single Judge. The issues relevant for the purpose of this appeal are:
1) The proceedings dated 16.03.2020 vide Memo 26086/lands-VIII/2020 setting aside the earlier proceedings of the government dated 16.11.2017 would amount to a review of the earlier order and such review is not permissible as there is no provision for such review. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Takhershi and others vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji 7, State Bank of India vs. S.N.Goyal8, Dr.Smt.Kuntesh Gupta 7 AIR 1970 SCC1273 8 AIR 2008 SCC 2594 10 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur and Ors.9
2. A rough patta is a valid document of title and the issuance of pattedar passbooks and title deeds on the basis of such rough patta is permissible. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam vs. Kanchubriki Parvatamma and Others10 and the decision of a learned single Judge in Bollineni Pedayogaiah and others vs. Joint Collector/Settlement Officer, Ongole and others11.
3. The categorization of the land as "Neeti Mumpu" cannot mean that the land is part of the tank bed, which precludes grant of ryotwari patta, and the Writ petitioners are entitled to their pattedar passbooks and would have to be permitted to convert the land to non agricultural purposes.
9
AIR 1987 SCC 2186 10 (2008) 6 ALD 788 (DB)(2009) 1 ALT 445 (DB) 11 2004(5) ALT 806 (D.B) 11 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 Consideration of the Court:
14. The proceedings of the joint collector dated 19.12.2011 did not cancel the rough patta. These proceedings cancelled the no objection certificate for conversion of land and the pattedar pass books under the provisions of the ROR Act. However, the Commissioner of appeals treated the appeal filed against this order as an appeal under the Estates Abolition Act. There is no explanation as to how primary proceedings under the ROR Act are being dealt with under the appeal provisions under the Estate Abolition Act, which is a totally different Act. Both the above proceedings were set aside in the revisional order of the Government dated 25.04.2016. The government had issued Memo No. 26086-A/EA & Ar/A1/2013, dated 16.11.2017 to implement the order dated 25.04.2016. The Government issued memo No. 26086/LANDS- VIII/2020, dated 16.03.2020 setting aside the above Memo dated 16.11.2017. The entire memo discusses the merits of the order dated 25.04.2016, but sets aside the memo of 16.11.2017. The revisional order of the Government Dated 25.04.2016 was not set aside and stands untouched and remains in force. The entire proceedings can be disposed of on this short ground. However, it would be 12 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 appropriate to consider all the other issues so as to pass a comprehensive order.
15. It is an admitted fact that a rough patta was given to the vendor of the petitioners in relation to the lands which are being claimed by the petitioners. A perusal of the documents and record placed before this Court clearly shows that the said rough patta has not been set aside by any authority since it was issued in 1963. The revenue authorities, who passed orders adverse to the petitioners, had simply proceeded on the ground that a rough patta does not grant any title to the petitioners or the vendors of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the effect of the grant of a rough patta needs to be considered by this Court.
16. Under the Estate Abolition Act, all the land, in all the zamindari Estates, reverted to the government, upon abolition of the Estates. Thereafter, persons who are in actual cultivation of the land were entitled to seek ryotwari pattas, conferring rights of ownership on them. The procedure for making such applications and the subsequent steps to be taken were set out in the Estates Abolition Act and the rules made thereunder. The entire process was to culminate in the grant of ryotwari patta, under section 11 (a) of the Estates Abolition Act. 13
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 There is no reference to grant of any rough patta, prior to the grant of a ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act, under any of the provisions of Estate Abolition Act. However, the settlement officers, considering applications for grant of ryotwari pattas, appear to have evolved a practice of grant of rough pattas as an intermediate step before the grant of ryotwari patta. The consequences of such a rough patta and rights, if any, that would be available to the holder of such rough pattas came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of R.Elamalai Chetty vs. R.Ratnavelu Chetty. The Division Bench after noticing that there has been a practice, of the settlement officers issuing rough pattas, had held that the said practice appears to be a continuation of an earlier practice of issuing rough pattas under the earlier manual of instructions for conducting resettlement in Madras Presidency. The Division bench took the view that such a rough patta is not a document issued under Section 11 of the Estate Abolition Act and therefore, cannot be treated as a document of a title or one constituting evidence of title.
17. Another division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam vs. Kanchubriki Parvatamma and Others, 14 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 after considering the judgment in R.Elamalai Chetty vs. R.Ratnavelu Chetty held that certain rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.36 (Revenue) Dated 21.11.1956 had not been considered by the earlier Division Bench and took the view that a rough patta grants valuable rights, to the holder of such rough patta, and the same cannot be denied due to which the authorities are required to effect and recognize such rough patta. The following passages sets out the view of the Division Bench in this case.
22. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in R. Elamalai Chetty v. R. Rathnavelu Chetty alias Ratna Chetty, 1971 (2) An. WR 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 setdement 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 at least 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 15 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 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 regulations 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.
23. 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, 16 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 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.
24. In the present case, the notification in respect of the settlement rates is said to have been introduced on 1.7.1959, 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 (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 hereinabove, 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 ryotwari patta under 17 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 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 (supra) is of no avail to the authorities.
18. In view of the above law laid down by the Division Bench, the rough patta granted to the vendor of the petitioners creates rights in favour of the said vendor which have now been passed on to the petitioners and the petitioners would thus to be entitled to seek mutation of their names in the revenue records and issuance of pattedar pass books, on the basis of the said rough patta.
19. The appellant authorities have also sought to raise some doubts in relation to the rough patta, in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court. A Division Bench of this erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Koyya Veerraju and others vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollaprolu, East Godavari District and others12 had held that any attempt to revisit ryotwari pattas granted under 12 1998(1) ALT 25 (D.B) 18 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 Section 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act after a passage of 28 years in that case is clearly not permissible unless a specific case of fraud can be made out against the grant of such patta. A learned Single Judge of this Court had also held in the same manner in Bollineni Pedayogaiah and others vs. Joint Collector/Settlement Officer, Ongole and others.
20. The next contention of the revenue authorities has been that such rough patta could not have been granted as the land in question falls within the tank bed area.
21. The appellant authorities contend that the land in question should be treated as tank bed land of a water body and consequently no ryotwari patta or rough patta can be granted in relation to such land in view of Board Standing Order No.15 read with Board Standing Order No.16. The appellant authorities also contend that in view of the various judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court set out above, water bodies cannot be disturbed in any manner and all necessary steps would have to be taken by the State to protect such water bodies for being used for any other purpose and to further take steps to revive water bodies wherever such water bodies have become defunct.
22. Board standing order No. 15, deals with grant of lands for occupation subject to payment of assessment. Board 19 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 Standing Order 16 deals with disposal of Tank bed lands. Board Standing Order 15 classifies all government land into land which can be assigned and land which cannot be assigned. The lands which can be assigned are (1) Assessed land which is not reserved and (2) Unassessed land which is not reserved. The lands which cannot be assigned are (a) Poramboke lands and (b) Reserved lands. All lands which fall within the tank beds are classified as Tank Poramboke, Cheruvu Poramboke or Vaagu Poramboke. Lands classified as "Neeti Mumpu" are not treated as Poramboke lands. There is no prohibition under Standing Order 15 for assignment of land which is shown as "Neeti Mumpu" lands.
23. Board Standing Order 16 stipulates that "All lands liable to submersion when the tank is full, should remain registered as "Tank Poramboke" as long as the Tank is maintained." The categorization of the land in the revenue records is that the land is to be treated as "Karakambadi Cheruvu Neeti Mumpu" and not Tank Poramboke. This indicates that the land is not being treated as part of the Karakambadi tank. It is being shown as land which could be subject to submersion at some stage. The contention of the authorities that such land would also have to be treated as part of the tank bed land in view of the provisions of the Board Standing Orders 20 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 15 and 16 is not made out, even according to these Standing Orders.
24. The claims of the Writ petitioners arise under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act and not the Board Standing Orders 15 and 16, which deal with assignment of government lands. As such, the provisions of the Board Standing orders would not be applicable to claims arising under the Estates Abolition Act.
25. The question whether Board Standing Orders have statutory force or whether they are mere executive instructions given by the Board of Revenue to it‟s subordinates has been considered in various Judgments, including Katta Rattamma And Others vs. Gannamaneni Kotaiah and Others13, K. Nagarathnammal vs. Ibrahim Sahed14, Pasupuleti Krishnamurthy vs. Annadasu Bapanayya15 and Anji Raju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh16. The consensus that can be seen in these judgments is that these standing orders would have the force of law, where they have been issued under the rule making power conferred under a statute. In cases where no such power can be traced, the standing orders would only be a set of executive instructions, without any statutory basis, given to the 13 (1975) II An.W.R. 122 14 AIR 1955 MAD 305 15 (1956) ALT 566 :: (1956) AN. W.R. 719 16 (1960) 2 AN.W.R. 272 21 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 revenue authorities for the purposes of carrying out their functions. In this case, Board Standing Order 15 and Board Standing Order 16 do not appear to have any statutory backing. In such circumstances the provisions of these Standing Orders cannot control the grant of ryotwari pattas under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. Even otherwise, the Board Standing Orders would at best amount to delegated legislation and such delegated legislation cannot control an Act of the Legislature, unless there is a specific stipulation to that effect.
26. The Appellants have also relied upon the judgements of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court to contend that water bodies cannot be touched and consequently the petitioners cannot be granted any proprietary rights. This contention would be available to the Appellants only when it is shown that the subject land falls within a water body. In the present case, the revenue records maintained by the appellants themselves show that these lands are outside the water spread area at full tank level and the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme court cannot be pressed into service by the Appellants.
27. It is the case of the Appellants that there is no provision for a revision against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue and the order dated 25.04.2016, 22 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 passed in a revision filed by the writ petitioners requires to be set aside and the same has been carried out by issuing Memo dated 16.03.2020. The Writ petitioners contend that there is no power of review under any of the Acts and consequently the order dated 16.03.2020, which is in the nature of a review cannot stand.
28. As pointed out earlier, the Memo dated 16.03.2020, has not set aside the order dated 25.04.2016, but the subsequent memo dated 16.11.2017, issued to implement the order dated 25.04.2016. In the circumstances, as the order dated 25.04.2016 has not been set aside by any proceedings, the entire issue does not arise for consideration.
29. For all the reasons set out above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and this Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ,CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS 23 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL No.682 of 2022 (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) 21.04.2023 RJS 24 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022