THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.28010 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging Memo No.J/1518/07, dated 29.02.2008 of fourth respondent and three other such Memoranda of same date with different numbers on the ground that they are illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.18 guntas in survey Nos.221 and 233 (hereafter called, petition schedule land) situated at Srinagar Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner’s case is as follows. He along with others purchased an extent of Acs.309.00 guntas in survey Nos.221 to 235 of Srinagar Village in 1976 from Mohammed Basheeruddin Ahmed and others, who are original inamdars. There was litigation at the instance of petitioner’s vendor in O.S.No.46 of 1969 on the file of Court of First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for redemption of mortgaged property. It appears the same was decreed and M/S.Sri Venkateshwara Collective Farming Society preferred C.C.C.A.No.18 of 1974 before this Court. The judgment of the lower Court in favour of petitioner’s vendor was confirmed, and Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. Final decree was passed, and petitioner and others who purchased the property from Mohammed Basheeruddin Ahmed and others filed E.P.No.7 of 1991. In the said E.P., protected tenants filed claim petition. At that stage, petitioner preferred appeals under Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity) against proceedings/orders of fourth respondent. As Pochani Ramulu and his four brothers (sons of Balaiah) were issued Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) by fourth respondent in respect of petition schedule land, they were arrayed as party respondents in appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The appeal was dismissed on 17.06.2006 on the ground that the inamdar was not granted ORC and therefore, he could not have sold the land to petitioner and others. The petitioner has not challenged the order of Joint Collector in any proceedings and thus, it has become final. On 24.01.2007, petitioner submitted petitions before fourth respondent seeking review of appellate order, dated 17.06.2006 passed by Joint Collector. These review petitions were dismissed by fourth respondent holding that being primary Tribunal, fourth respondent is not entitled to review the order of appellate authority under Section 24 of the Act. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana). There is no denial that fourth respondent issued ORC on 21.04.1993. Petitioner and others filed appeals under Section 24 of the Act. By an order, dated 25.09.1995, Joint Collector set aside the order of Revenue Divisional Officer and remanded back. Again after remand, fourth respondent by proceedings, dated 18.05.1999 confirmed the ORC issued to Pochini Ramulu and four others. When the order of original authority i.e., RDO is confirmed by appellate authority, the order of the original authority merges into appellate authority and the review of appellate order by original authority is not maintainable. In dismissing review petitions filed by petitioner, the RDO correctly applied legal principle. Further more, it is very much doubtful whether Joint Collector can himself review his own Order under the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limini without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .01.2009 pln