HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.2927 of 2006 Date: June 27, 2011 Between: B.Premalatha, W/o.Malla Reddy, Aged about 60 years, R/o.Bhailampur Village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District and another … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Medak District, at Sangareddy and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 28-02-2005 passed in Case No.F3/2630/1999- F3/18/INAM/2000, by the 1st respondent – appellate authority under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). The 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Division, Medak District, by order dated 29.11.1997, on the application made by the petitioners, granted occupancy rights in their favour for the land covered by Sy.Nos.2, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 and 148 totally admeasuring Ac.4.22 ½ guntas situated at Bailampur village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District. The said order was challenged by the 3rd respondent herein by way of an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the appellate authority, i.e. the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Medak District. For the purpose of disposal of the writ petition, it is not necessary to detail all the facts and the contentions advanced on behalf of the 3rd respondent; but it is suffice to state the plea of the 3rd respondent before the appellate authority, which is to the effect that the primary authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer, did not issue notice to her under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder before granting patta certificate in favour of the petitioners. The appellate authority, while allowing the appeal of the 3rd respondent on the ground that there was no notice to the affected parties, recorded a finding that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not followed the procedure. While recording such finding, the appellate authority has not only set-aside the order of the primary authority, but also issued further positive directions for grant of occupancy certificate in favour of the 3rd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue 1st and 2nd respondents, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and also perused the order impugned. The order of the appellate authority dated 28-02- 2005 though refers to the contentions advanced by the counsel on either side; mainly, the order dated 27.11.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer granting occupancy certificate in favour of the petitioners is set-aside on the ground that there was no notice to the affected parties and the primary authority has not followed the due procedure. When the plea of the 3rd respondent was not accepted on merits and the order of the primary authority granting occupancy certificate in favuor of the petitioners is set-aside on the ground that procedure was not followed, the appellate authority ought to have left open the matter to be decided afresh without issuing any positive directions for grant of occupancy certificate in favour of the 3rd respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, without going into the merits of the matter, I set-aside the order of the appellate authority dated 28-02-2005 to the extent of issuing directions for grant of occupancy certificate for the land in question in favour of the 3rd respondent and direct the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the matter afresh on the application of the petitioners for grant of occupancy certificate uninfluenced by the positive directions issued by the 1st respondent-appellate authority. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 27, 2011 MRR