THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16471 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner – Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, questioned the order, dated 03.03.2004, passed by the first respondent - Commissioner (Appeals) in proceedings No.V1/1859/91 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 14-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), setting aside the decision of the third respondent - Special Deputy Tahsildar, Inams, Narasaraopet, rendered on 10.05.1983 in Form-II in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(3) of the Act. The third respondent declared an extent of Acs.3157.20 cents, covered by Survey No.28 of Singarutla Village, as an inam land, in an inam village and that the said land was held by the petitioner temple. Stating that the aforesaid land is classified as poramboke in Inam ‘B’ Register and shown as Agraharam Forest Poramboke in the Village Account, and in view of provision under Section 2-A of the Act, it vests with the Government free from all encumbrances, the decision rendered by the third respondent on 10.05.1983, published in the District Gazette on 16.08.1983, is not correct, proceedings were initiated by the first respondent by issuing notice, dated 21.10.1992, in proceedings No.V1/1859/91, to the petitioner to explain as to why the decision of the third respondent should not be cancelled. As against the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25490 of 2000. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order, dated 18.07.2003, in which, it observed that the impugned notice is in the nature of show cause notice, as such, it cannot be subjected to judicial review and accordingly, permitted the petitioner to approach the first respondent by filing a representation. However, the petitioner did not file any representation in spite of giving notice to it, as such, the first respondent by placing reliance on the provision under Section 2-A of the Act and stating that the land in question is classified as forest poramboke as per the Village Account and shown as poramboke in the Inam ‘B’ Register, as such, it vests with the Government under Section 2-A of the Act, passed the impugned order setting aside the decision given by the third respondent on 10.05.1983 in Form-II under Section 3(3) of the Act holding that an extent of Acs.3157.20 cents covered by T.D.No.1128 in Block Survey No.28 of Singarutla Village, classified as forest land, is an inam land, in an inam village and held by the petitioner temple. It is argued by Sri N.Gurugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner temple that there is abnormal delay of 9 years in initiating suo motu proceedings, as such, the first respondent is not empowered to exercise the powers under Section 14-A of Act. It is further argued that under Section 14-A of the Act, powers are conferred only on the Board of Revenue, as such, there is no jurisdiction to the first respondent to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment, dated 14.09.1988, rendered by the Forest Settlement Officer, Bezawada, under Madras Forest Act V of 1882. Further, reference is also made to the judgment, dated 31.08.1971, rendered by the learned District Munsif, Gurazala, decreeing O.S.No.324 of 1969 filed by the temple for mandatory injunction. It is also submitted that basing on the entries in the Village Account, the first respondent could not have passed the impugned order by setting aside the decision of the third respondent. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents that in view of the provision under Section 2-A of the Act, all the communal lands, porambokes, grazing lands, forest lands, waste lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inam lands, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest with it free from all encumbrances. It is further submitted that as the third respondent gave decision in Form II contrary to the entries made in Inam ‘B’ register, it is always open to the first respondent to exercise suo motu powers under Section 14-A of the Act in order to set aside such decision. It is further submitted that in view of abolition of Board of Revenue, the first respondent exercised his powers and there is no such plea raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is also submitted that the judgments rendered by the Forest Settlement Officer, prior to enforcement of the Act, and the civil Court in O.S.No.324 of 1969 will not have any bearing on the issue in view of the amendment to the provisions of the Act by virtue of Act 20 of 1975. I have perused the decision, dated 10.05.1983, of the third respondent, published in Guntur District Gazette, dated 16.08.1983, and also the impugned order passed by the first respondent. The schedule mentioned in decision rendered by the third respondent in Form-II, dated 10.05.1983, indicates the name of the village as Singarutla, T.D. number as 1128, Survey Number as 28, classification as Forest and extent as Acs.3157.20 cents. If so, it runs contrary to Section 2-A of the Act. Section 2-A of the Act was inserted into the Act by virtue of Act 20 of 1975. According to such amendment, forest lands shall stand transferred by operation of law to the Government and vest with it free from all encumbrances. In that view of the matter, once the classification is shown as forest land, it is squarely covered by Section 2-A of the Act and such land stood transferred to the Government and vests with it free from all encumbrances. Therefore, it can be said that the third respondent has grossly erred in rendering his decision in Form-II, dated 10.05.1983. Although it is the case of the petitioner that there was some delay in initiating proceedings, the decision taken by the primary authority is ex facie illegal and as it runs contrary to the provisions of the Act, it is always open to the first respondent to initiate suo motu proceedings to set aside such decision. A reading of the provision under Section 14-A of the Act shows that it is open to the revisional authority to satisfy itself with regard to the regularity or correctness, legality or propriety of the decision rendered by the primary authority. The schedule mentioned in decision of the third respondent in Form-II, dated 10.05.1983, itself indicates that the land in question is classified as forest and as the same runs contrary to the statutory provisions under the Act, the aforesaid delay in initiating proceedings against the petitioner cannot be construed as abnormal and inordinate on the part of the first respondent. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional authority is the Board of Revenue, in view of abolition of the Board of Revenue, powers are conferred on the first respondent, as such, it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. I have also perused the judgments of the Forest Settlement Officer and the learned District Munsif, Gurazala. The judgment of the Forest Settlement Officer under Madras Forest Act V of 1882 would not render any assistance to the petitioner in support of his arguments in view of subsequent amendment to the Act by way of Act 20 of 1975, the object of which is different and distinct, and in the absence of any challenge to such amendment. The statement of objects of the Act is designed for conversion of inams into ryotwari tenure. Further, the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Gurazala, in O.S.No.324 of 1969 filed for injunction simplicitor, also will not have any bearing on the issue. It is to be noticed that as per the entries in statutory documents, namely, Village Account and Inam ‘B’ register, the land in question is classified as forest poramboke, as such, it is to be treated as forest poramboke. Although it is the case of the petitioner that such entries are made incorrectly, unless such entries are corrected in accordance with law, they have to be presumed as correct. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any steps taken by the petitioner temple for correction of such entries and in view of provision under Section 2-A of the Act, it cannot seek any declaration that the land in question is held by it. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th SEPTEMBER, 2010. kvni