IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14430 of 2009 Between: Sri. Chennakesava Swamy Vari Devasthanam Rep. by its Executive Officer, Korutadiparru Village, Amrathaluru Mandal, guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Settlement Officer cum Joint Collector / Additional District Magistrate, Guntur. 2 Ch. Krishnavenamma W/o. AnjaneyuluR/o. Korutadiparru PResently REsiding at PLN Sastry 3-14-128, SrinivasapuramRamanthapur, hyderabad. 3 Koganti Subbarao S/o. Anjaiah Vamanaguntapalem (V) and Mandal Guntur District. 4 Ch. Madhu Babu S/o. Kshiteesh Chandrababu R/o. 16-11-74/7, Manju Apartments, Moosrambagh Hyderabad. 5 Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its secretary, Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6 The Govt. of a.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, hyderabad. 7 The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 8 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali Division, guntur District. 9 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Amarthaluru Mandal, Guntur District. 10 The Director Survey Settlements and Land Records, Abids, hyderabad 11 The Commissioner, hyderabad ( R5 to R11 are not necessary to this WPMP, as they are only formal parties in the WP & impuhned order ) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare that the impugned order issued by the Settlement Officer cum Joint Collector / Additional District Magistrate, Guntur dated 12.06.2009, is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction ultravires of the provisions of the A.P. Estates ( Abolition ) and Conversion into Ryotwari Act. 26/1948 and A.P.( Andhra Area ) Inams Abolition and conversion into ( Ryotwari ) Act. 37/1956 and the rules made there under Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.14430 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The order impugned by the petitioner-Devasthanam is that of the 1st respondent- Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Guntur in proceedings bearing reference No.2737/2003-F1, dated.12-06-2009 holding that as Koruthadiparru village of Amarthaluru Mandal, Guntur District was notified and published in the Fort St.George Gazette Part.I as per G.O.Ms.No.2302 (Revenue) dated.01-09-1951 (in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 1 (4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1948), all the Inam Estates specified in the schedule to the notification could be considered for grant of ryotwari pattas including in Sy.Nos.73,139,182, 209, 216 and 221 of Koruthadiparru village. The 1st respondent also held that Koruthadiparru village in its entirety as a Inam Estate within the meaning of the said expression under the Estates Abolition Act,1948 ( for short “1948 Act”) and the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 and that the lands in respect of which respondents 2 to 4 have claimed ryotwari pattas form part of Koruthadiparru village, an Inam Estate, and therefore they would be entitled to grant of ryotwari pattas under Section 7 of the 1948 Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.Adinarayana Raju contends that earlier under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Inams Abolition Act, for brevity) in respect of title deed No.979 of Korutadiparru village, by a proceedings dated 31.10.1977 in I.A.C.Nos.336, 337, 342 345 and 350 of 1975, the Inam Deputy Tahasildr, Tenali had determined that all the lands except the land in Sy.No.151 of an extent of Ac.2.90 cents are held by the petitioner-institution and that only land in Sy.No.151 is not so held by the petitioner. Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel contends that this determination under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act is binding on the Tribunals constituted under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act,1948 as well. Prima facie the decision of the Settlement Officer by implication determining the lands in question (for which ryotwari pattas were claimed by the respondents 2 to 4) to be an Inam Estate within 7the meaning of the said expression under the 1948 Act would be a determination presumptively under Section 9 of the 1948 Act and therefore susceptible to an appellate remedy under the provisions of Section 9 (4) of the said Act. Alternatively, the petitioner also has a revisional remedy under Section 5(2) of the Act to the Director of Settlements. Which of the remedies is more appropriate is a matter of forensic choice for the petitioner. That against the order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner has a remedy either under Section 5(2) or under Section 9(4) of the Estates Abolition Act,1948 is not in dispute. In the circumstances this court is not inclined to examine the correctness or vitality of the order of the 1st respondent-Settlement Officer without relegating the petitioner first to pursue the statutory remedy available. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedies under the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Abolition of Estates and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948. The fact that the petitioner has filed this writ petition may be canvassed by the petitioner as an appropriate cause for the delay in preferring the remedies under the provisions of the Act before the appellate or revisional authorities as the case may be. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 20th JULY 2009 *TSNR