Thota Sattaiah, v. The Chief Commissioner Of Land Appeals,

DATED 28th JANUARY, 2015 Between:

Thota Sattaiah ... Petitioner And The Chief Commissioner of Land Appeals, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, And others.

... Respondents

O R D E R

The order dated 03.11.2003 of the Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, confirming the order dated 24.06.2000 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District, is subjected to challenge in this writ petition. By the aforesaid orders, the request of the petitioner for correction of settlement errors under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F, was rejected. The petitioner had asked for correction of entries in the survey settlement records pertaining to Sy.Nos.143 and 159 of Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal.

There was no representation for the petitioner or his learned counsel when the matter was taken up in the pre-lunch session today. The matter was accordingly passed-over but, yet again, there is no representation when the matter is taken up in the afternoon. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue states that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in K.GNANESHWAR V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT[1], wherein it was held that in exercise of powers under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F, correction of errors in the revenue records could be effected only if the application is made within two years of the introduction of the settlement in respect of private lands and in cases where such application was

made beyond two years, the Government's sanction would have to be obtained. He points out that in the present case the rectification of the revenue records was sought by the petitioner well after the lapse of two years.

In any event of the matter, as there is no representation for the petitioner or his learned counsel though the matter is over a decade old and is ripe for final hearing and as the issue raised is settled by the aforestated decision, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order 10.03.2004 shall stand vacated. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J 28th JANUARY, 2015 PGS

DATED 28th JANUARY, 2015 [1] 2005 (4) ALT 130