Order
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the High Court was justified in quashing the orders passed by the appellants 2 to 4 and issuing directions to grant ryotwari patta to the respondents of approximately 340 acres of land. The respondents claimed rights under Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969. Section 5 of the regulation entitled the ryot in a Mutta for grant of ryotwari patta, in respect of agricultural land, held by him if he was found in lawful possession for a continuous period of not less than one year immediately before the notified date. Mutta under the regulation is defined to mean a village or a group of villages held by a Muttadar. The learned Single Judge found that the respondent was a ryot of the abolished Rampamutta and having been lawfully inducted into possession on February 1, 1951 in pursuance of the permission issued by Madras Government through GO dated 13-11-1950 and was continuing for more than eight years preceding 26-10-1970 the date of notification issued under Regulation II of 1969 abolishing Mutta he was entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 5 of the said regulation. One of the ingredients for successfully invoking Section 5 of the regulation is continuous possession for eight years preceding the date of notification that is 26-10-1970. For recording this finding the learned Single Judge relied apart from other circumstances on certain documents filed for the first time in writ petition. In Letters Patent Appeal the Division Bench dismissed the appeal as the question whether respondent was in possession or not was a finding of fact and the same having been recorded on appreciation of evidence it was not liable to interference. In this Court an affidavit has been filed by Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records that the learned Single Judge had received into evidence the photostat copies of certified copies of the survey land registers of Rampachodavaram Village which was prepared during the initial survey operations. It is averred that verification of the original survey land register of the Rampa village prepared in 1970 revealed that the original entries had been erased and the name of the respondent was overwritten. In reply affidavit the allegations of tampering are not very clearly denied except saying that this being a Government document the allegations that they were tampered were not correct.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for parties. Two questions arise, one, if the additional documents could have been admitted in writ jurisdiction and second if reliance could be placed on them as they were only photostat copies and the High Court admitted the documents without recording any finding that the respondents made out a case for acceptance of secondary evidence. The admission of additional documents by the High Court in writ jurisdiction is an exercise of discretion with which this Court does not normally interfere. But the genuineness of documents is an aspect which goes to the root of the matter. If the records have been tampered and fictitious documents were produced before the High Court then it certainly vitiates the finding. In our opinion, in absence of any finding on it, may be because it was not raised in the High Court yet being a fundamental question which if found to be correct would render entire proceedings bad, it appears expedient to direct the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement to examine it after affording opportunity to both sides to lead evidence. The finding shall be recorded after examining the original records.
3. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are set aside. The order of the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement is also set aside. He shall decide the dispute afresh after examining the original record and recording the finding if the documents filed by the respondents are genuine or not.
4. Parties shall bear their own costs.