THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.9070 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (Inam Tribunal), Hyderabad Division, with a request to grant Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC), in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.10.5 guntas, in Sy.No.32 of Asifnagar Revenue Village and Mandal, Hyderabad. Through the proceedings dated 30- 07-2003, the Revenue Divisional Officer granted ORC in favour of the petitioners, under the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Feeling aggrieved by the same, Mohd.Azam Khan, the 2nd respondent herein, filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act, before the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, the 1st respondent herein. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 herein got themselves impleaded in the appeal. However, the 2nd respondent has filed a petition, on 23-04-2005, proposing to withdraw the appeal, on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at, between him and his opponents. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal, as not pressed. The 1st respondent, however, proceeded with the hearing of the appeal, and through order dated 21-03-2006, had set aside the ORC granted in favour of the petitioners, and remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, for fresh consideration and disposal. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit, making an attempt to justify the order passed by him. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have also filed counter-affidavit. Heard Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, and learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7. The Legislature enacted the Act, with the specific object of abolition of imams and conferring rights upon certain individuals, to comply with the conditions stipulated therein. It provides for grant of ORCs in favour of the persons, who prove their possession over the land, which hitherto was part of the inam, as on the notified date. The application filed by the petitioners was processed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and ORC was granted through the proceedings dated 30-07-2003. The 2nd respondent was the only person, who has challenged the ORC granted in favour of the petitioners. Section 24 of the Act provides for appeal by an aggrieved party. During the pendency of the appeal before the 1st respondent, respondents 3, 4 and 5 got themselves impleaded, and they have put forward their own claims. The fact remains that none of the respondents 2 to 7, submitted independent applications for grant of ORCs in their favour. Whatever may have been the grounds pleaded by respondent No.2, or for that matter, the other respondents, vis-à-vis, the ORC granted in favour of the petitioners, once the only appellant, viz., the 2nd respondent, has chosen to withdraw the appeal, there was no basis for the 1st respondent to proceed with the same. The Act does not confer any suo motu powers of appeal, or revision on the 1st respondent. Therefore, the only circumstance, under which the 1st respondent can examine the matter, is, when an appeal is brought before him by an aggrieved party, in terms of Section 24 of the Act. Further, if the appellant has chosen to withdraw the appeal, the 1st respondent ceases to have any right, basis or occasion, to proceed with the appeal. After taking note of the withdrawal petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent has chosen for himself, as many as 9 issues, for determination. The basis for identification of such issues and proceeding further, was indicated in the following sentences: “Sri Azam Khan has filed a withdrawal petition on 23-04-2005 stating that they have settled the matter by mutual understanding and requested to dismiss the appeal as not pressed in the interest of justice. But this appeal relates to a land which is an Inam land and it vests with the Government under the Inam Abolition Act, 1955 till Occupancy Rights Certificates are issued to the rightful persons who are eligible under the provisions of this Act. Further this appeal has thrown the following contentious issues which need to be re-examined in the larger public interest”. It needs to be noted that the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are purely adversarial in nature, and the question of the 1st respondent examining the public interest therein, does not arise. When the provision does not permit of any inquisitorial examination, the question of continuing the proceedings, even after the sole appellant has filed an application to withdraw the appeal; is beyond imagination. After continuing the appeal, despite the withdrawal, the 1st respondent has set aside the ORC granted in favour of the petitioners, and directed fresh inquiry. This Court finds that, such an approach is totally untenable and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Act. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, made clear that, it shall be open to the respondents 3 to 7, or any other aggrieved parties, to work out their remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06-04-2009. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/O) KO*