IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18987 of 1998 Between: Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, rep by Executive OfficerSri N.Yanadi shetty Kothur , Kovur Village & Mandal , Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of survey Settlements and Land Records of A.P Station road , Nampally , Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector nellore. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kavali Nellore Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Calling for the records relating to order dt : 21-3-98in Reference No.VI/780/95 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and pass such orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:rMr.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records in Case No.VI-780-95, dated 21-03-1998. The subject-matter of the present Writ Petition arises under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’), 1956 ( hereinafter, A.P.Act 37 of 1956). 2. The present case has a long and chequered history which is not necessary to be set out in view of the order proposed to be made. It would be suffice to mention that with respect to the lands in question, which are registered in favour of the writ petitioner- temple as an endowment, disputes pertaining to grant of ryotwari pattas have been pending with the hierarchy of authorities from 1958 onwards. There have been several proceedings under which ultimately substantial part of the land was granted as patta land whereas part of the land was declared as waste land covered under Section 2-A in A.P.Act 37/56 as amended under A.P.Act No.2/75. Simultaneously, there were proceedings under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 wherein also ultimately these lands are held to be the lands belonging to the temple. 3. So far as the precise question which arises in this Writ Petition is concerned, pursuant to the earlier orders, the 1st respondent decided a revision petition on 23-06-1992 by upholding the contention of the petitioner and setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent to re-examine the matter on the points framed and answer the question as to whether the lands belong to the institution or not. Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent under his order, dated 22-07-1995, has disposed of the said proceedings by holding that the lands belong to the institution and that the lands are not waste lands and consequently do not vest in the Government. 4. Questioning the aforesaid order, dated 22-07-1995, the 2nd respondent-Collector filed a revision under Section 14-A of the Act before the 1st respondent. Under the impugned order, the 1st respondent has reversed the said order, dated 22-07-1995, and has partly allowed the said revision. It is the said order of the Commissioner which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 5. I have heard Sri Ravindra Nath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. From the chronology of events and dates of events, it is evident that the learned Commissioner, while hearing the aforesaid revision, has recorded a finding in the last paragraph of the impugned order that principles of natural justice will be better served by remanding the matter to the Inam Deputy Tahsildar for fresh disposal following due procedure of issuing notices to all the persons, perusing the relevant records etc., Thus, the 1st respondent felt that the order impugned before him, namely the order of the 3rd respondent, dated 22-0-1995, suffered from violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the matter deserved a remand. However, in the second last paragraph of the impugned order, the Commissioner gave findings based upon the other part of the same impugned order and disagreed with the findings of the 3rd respondent. In effect, therefore, the learned Commissioner has accepted the impugned order in part and rejected the same in the other part. When once the Commissioner was of the opinion that the order of the 3rd respondent suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice, upholding any part of the said order impugned before him on any other ground would be wholly inconsistent with the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the said order suffered from violation of principles of natural justice. The inconsistency in the impugned order therefore is necessary to be corrected. 7. I therefore deem it appropriate to hold that the finding of the learned Commissioner in the said second last paragraph of the impugned order giving finding under Section 2-A of the Act as not sustainable and consequently the entire matter would stand remitted to the 3rd respondent (who is also said to be the delegate of the powers of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar) for fresh disposal in accordance with law as directed by the Commissioner in the last paragraph of the impugned order by duly following the principles of natural justice and after giving notices, and after hearing all the affected parties. The 3rd respondent shall pass an appropriate order on merits, expeditiously, after following the aforesaid due procedure. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 08th December, 2008. Tsy To 1 The Commissioner of survey Settlements and Land Records of A.P Station road , Nampally , Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector nellore. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kavali Nellore District. 4. CCs to the GP for Revenue. 5. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD}