THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27357 of 2008 ORDER: An extent of Acs.362.07 cents of land in Sy.Nos.153, 160 161 and 165 of Kalichedu Village, Saidapuram Mandal, Nellore District was under the direct control and administration of the ‘Raja’, of Venkatagiri. The Raja founded “Poor House Trust” (for short ‘the Trust’) in the year 1901, with an object of taking care of the orphans, in his Kingdom. For the purpose of maintenance of the Trust, the land, referred to above, was entrusted to it. The Raja himself took the land on lease, on a rental of Rs.35,000/- per year, and obtained a mining lease from the erstwhile Madras State. A fresh lease was granted to him, by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in the year 1959, and the lease is now subsisting. The mining was transferred in favour of the petitioner, on 28-12-1961. The lease of the land is said to have been surrendered by the Raja, of Venkatagiri, in favour of the Trust. It is stated that on 20-11-1965, the Trust granted patta in favour of the petitioner, over the land, of Acs.356.18 cents. After the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of ryotwari patta before the Inam Deputy Tahsildar. The application was rejected, through endorsement dated 15-06-1994, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 4th respondent herein. The petitioner filed a revision before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 3rd respondent. The revision was dismissed, on the ground that the land vested in the Government, on being declared under Section 2-A of the Act, as poramboke. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a further revision, under Section 14-A of the Act, before the Commissioner of Land Administration, the 1st respondent herein. That was also dismissed on 02-07-2008, on the same ground, viz., that the land was declared as poramboke, under Section 2-A of the Act. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The application submitted by the petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta, under the Act, was rejected through an endorsement, by the 4th respondent, on 15-06-1994. No reason, worth its name, was mentioned in it. It is only in the revision filed by the petitioner, that the 3rd respondent has undertaken extensive discussion. The sole basis for rejecting the application of the petitioner was, that the land was declared under Section 2-A of the Act, as communal poramboke. Except making a mention, that the land, applied by the petitioner, was declared as poramboke, under Section 2-A of the Act, none of the particulars were mentioned. It is true that Section 2-A of the Act exempts certain categories of lands, such as, tanks, forest land, poramboke etc., from the purview of the Act, and prohibits grant of ryotwari pattas, in respect of such lands. However, before a land is declared as tank, or poramboke, under Section 2-A, necessary enquiry has to be conducted, and the affected parties are to be given notice of being heard. If one examines the scheme of the Act, Section 4 provides for enquiry, even when a village, in its entirety, or part of it; is declared as inam. On account of such declarations, while some individuals get important rights, others stand to loose. Therefore, the Act provides for enquiry. Section 2-A was introduced at a later point of time. The consequences that flow from any steps, to bring a particular piece of land under Section 2-A of the Act, are equally drastic, if not more. Therefore, any action, on the part of the concerned authorities, to bring a piece of land under the purview of Section 2-A, can be treated as valid, only when affected parties were put on notice, and enquiry, akin to the one, provided for under Section 4 of the Act is held. Admittedly, in the instant case, no such enquiry was held. Therefore, the very exercise undertaken by the respondents in treating the land as the one, under Section 2-A of the Act, cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer; Revenue Divisional Officer, and the one, passed by the 1st respondent, dated 02-07-2008 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapuram, for fresh consideration and disposal, without treating the land as the one, covered by Section 2-A of the Act; and consider the case of the petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta, under Section 7 of the Act. This order, however, does not preclude the concerned authorities from taking necessary steps under Section 2-A of the Act, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 30-04-2009. KO