THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10190 of 2009 07.06.2010 Between: Siddala Ravi Babu and others. ….Petitioners AND The Government of A.P., rep.by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10190 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners statedly own land admeasuring Acs.3.56 in survey No.192/4, which is allegedly irrigated by drawing water from irrigation well in survey No.192/5 situated at Karakambadi Village of Renigunta Mandal in Chittoor District. They claim it to be their ancestral properties belonging to their father late Siddala Krishnaiah, after whose death, the names of petitioners are mutated in the revenue records. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi (RDO) by a letter dated 09.04.2009 advised second respondent, namely, Tahsildar, Renigunta to take necessary action on the representation made by third respondent, if necessary by taking police protection. Petitioners state that when Station House Officer (SHO), P.S., Renigunta, registered crime No.65 of 2009 on 11.05.2009 under Sections 147, 447, 506, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on the said letter of RDO, petitioners came to know and made enquiries. To make the long story short, during the enquiry petitioners came to know that on an application dated 17.01.2000 made by third respondent, second respondent purporting to exercise powers under Section 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Inams Abolition Act, for brevity) granted ryotwari patta in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.20 cents comprised in survey Nos.192/4, 300/2, 303/5 and 321/6. Two years thereafter, by communication bearing Roc No.E/54/2003, dated 02.05.2003, second respondent requested first respondent for necessary orders to cancel the alleged unauthorized, interpolated, tampered/fraudulent entries in respect of the land which the petitioners claim. In the said communication, second respondent mentioned that the land in survey No.192/4 at Karakambadi village stands in the name of petitioners’ father late Siddala Krishnaiah. It appears third respondent made a representation on 07.04.2009 to the RDO making certain allegations regarding alleged interference by petitioners in respect of the land in survey No.194/5, based on which communication was sent to the police leading to registration of crime against petitioners. In response to the request of the Tahsildar, the RDO by communication dated 06.05.2003 directed to make necessary entries in the fair adangal, 10(1) account and ROR Register I and IB, ineffect directing to delete the entries in favour of late Krishnaiah. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition challenging the proceedings, dated 23.08.2001 of the Tahsildar, Renigunta granting patta in favour of third respondent and the proceedings, dated 06.05.2003 directing deletion of the entries which were in favour of petitioners’ predecessor. This Court while admitting the writ petition stayed operation of proceedings, dated 06.05.2003 of the RDO by order dated 20.05.2009. Third respondent as well as respondents 1 and 2 have filed applications being W.V.M.P.No.2580 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.2808 of 2009 respectively for vacating the interim order. Two contentions are mainly urged: First, the Tahsildar is not competent to grant patta under Section 7(1) of the Act and secondly, the grant of patta or order to delete the entries in revenue records without notice to petitioners is illegal. The Government Pleader has placed before this Court a copy of the proceedings of District Collector (Joint Collector) being No.B9/018571/91, dated 11.12.1991 whereunder while ordering the work under Inams Abolition Act to be continued is entrusted to Inams Deputy Tahsildar, District Collector’s Office, which was ordered to entrust the work of service inams in various Mandals including Renigunta Mandal to be entrusted to Tahsildar (then Mandal Revenue Officer). Insofar as notice is concerned, it is contended by official respondents that at the stage of enquiry under Section 3 Inams Abolition Act, notice in form V was issued to third respondent and one D.Venkatachalam and that there are no objections to the same. Similar contentions are also urged by third respondent in the counter affidavit sustaining the patta and subsequent orders passed by Tahsildar as well as RDO. There is a dispute as to whether the land in survey No.192/4 is a service inam or the ancestral property of father of petitioners. Whether the Tahsildar is competent to issue patta in respect of land which is admittedly service inam is again a matter to be gone into keeping in view Section 2(j) read with Section 7(1) of the Inams Abolition Act after determining the question whether the land is service inam or not. Insofar as question of notice is concerned, there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 as well as third respondent whether petitioners’ father or petitioners were given any notice. Indeed, a perusal of communication dated 23.08.2001 of Tahsildar as well as communication dated 06.05.2003 of the RDO would show that the name of Siddala Krishnaiah (petitioners’ father) was entered in 10(1) Adangal and other revenue records like ROR Register whose land is situated in survey No.192/4. From this a reasonable inference can be drawn that the competent authority while considering the application of third respondent under Section 7(1) of the Inams Abolition Act failed to give any notice as a result of which all proceedings got vitiated. This conclusion, however, cannot be taken to decide the merits of the rival claims. Ultimately, it is for the competent authority, the Inams Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar to decide all the relevant questions that would arise under the Inams Abolition Act and the relevant rules before granting ryotwari patta. Therefore, on the limited ground that the notice was not issued to petitioners’ father or petitioners at the time of grant of patta, the matter requires re-consideration. In the result, for the above reasons, the impugned orders being proceedings RoC No.B/329/2000, dated 23.08.2001 of Tahsildar, Renigunta and proceedings RoC No.G/855/03, dated 06.05.2003 of the RDO, Tirupathi are set aside and the matter is remitted to Tahsildar, Renigunta. The question whether it is competent for him to grant ryotwari patta under Section 7(1) of Inams Abolition Act is left open to be agitated by rival claimants before the authorities. As both the parties claim to be in possession of the property, there shall be status quo as on today till the matter is finally decided by competent authority either under Section 7(1) or 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 07.06.2010 Pln