M. CHINNA PAPAMMA Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

(2.) This Court has heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the petitioners, Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment for Respondents 5 to 7.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Revenue along with his submissions filed a note mentioning the dates and sequence of events. It is his contention that the land in Sy.No.91/4 of Daminedu Village is classified as Government Poramboke land and is registered is kunta poramboke. The possession of the petitioner is also strongly denied by the learned Government Pleader. The crux of the matter as per him is that the Settlement Officer's order, dtd. 13/4/1982, is vitiated by a fraud and very serious allegations are made against the said Settlement Officer. It is also stated that in view of the fraudulent activity of the Settlement Officer, Government also issued orders directing the Collectors not to implement the orders of the said Officer. It is particularly asserted that he has granted a ryotwari patta for a water body ignoring the law on the subject and also the Board Standing orders. Learned Government Pleader draws the attention of this Court to all these issues and in particular raises an issue of delay in entertaining the matter by the Settlement Officer. It is also asserted that the land in Sy.No.91/4 is vacant land. Learned Government Pleader also relies upon the well known judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v Government of A.P. and others.,(2007) 4 SCC 221 to argue that where fraud has been committed it will vitiate all the transactions and all orders. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, argues that this is a fit case in which the Court should interfere and set aside the orders dtd. 11/7/2019 of the Commissioner of Appeals (7th respondent), the order dtd. 9/6/1999 of the Director of Settlement along with order of the 5th respondent, dtd. 13/4/1982. Thus, the prayer in the Writ Petition is to set aside an order that was passed in 1982 which was confirmed by two other officers.