THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26883 of 2010 DT.29.10.2010 Between: Bavirisetti Eswara and others. … Petitioners And The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Revenue Court (under the provisions of A.P.(AA) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956), Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.P.Roy Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 : Mr.Bokka Satyanarayana The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 28.08.2010, of respondent No.1 in Inam Appeal R.C.No.4445/2007, confirming proceedings, dated 05.04.2006, of respondent No.2 in Inam Case AIP No.1401/2004. I have heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri Bokka Satyanaraya, Caveator for respondent Nos.3 to 6. At the hearing, Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not disputed that against the orders impugned in this writ petition, his clients have a remedy of revision petition under Section 14A of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned counsel has, however, submitted that the very premise on which the primary authority has granted ryotwari patta, namely that the lands in question were inam lands, is grossly incorrect, his clients are constrained to file present writ petition. In my opinion, the question whether the provisions of the Act apply or not depends upon the finding of fact as to whether the lands were inam lands or private lands situated in a Zamindari Village as being alleged by the petitioners. Unless these facts are decided, the primary authority cannot be said to suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction to deal with the claims. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition, at this stage. When the petitioners are left with an effective alternative remedy of revision, they are entitled to raise all legally permissible pleas, including the one referred to above, before the revisional authority. In order to protect the interests of the petitioners, the parties are directed to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34356 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 29.10.2010 VGB