THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 19087 of 2005 O R D E R: It appears, against an extent of Ac.4-50 cents in S.No.378/2 of Tiruchanur village, Tirupathi, patta under the Inams Act was granted in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the R.D.O. The R.D.O. allowed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, respondents filed revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. The Commissioner of Appeals, however, allowed the revision filed by the respondents and remanded the matter for re-consideration. At that stage, again the R.D.O. allowed the appeal of the State without taking into consideration the report submitted by the M.R.O. or the report of Inspection of 1967-68 into consideration. Therefore, respondents have filed revision before the Commissioner of Appeals. The revisional authority – Commissioner of Appeals, after examining all the details including the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the inspection conducted at the earliest point of time in 1967-68 would indicate that there is no ‘kalva’. Therefore, this piece of evidence was taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the revision and a finding was recorded that there was no kaluva/waste land available in the land held by the respondents. Thus, while reverting the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the order passed by the Tahsildar was upheld vide order dated 18.10.2004. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed. The relevant finding of the Commissioner of Appeals reads as under: “The Collector, Chittoor has filed Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati against the order of Inams Dy. Tahsildar, Chittoor in S.R. No. 142/85 dated 26.10.1985 granting ryotwari patta in respect of Sy.No.378/2 measuring Ac.4-50 cents of Tiruchanoor village in favour of the petitioner. In the affidavit, the M.R.O., Tirupati (Rural) has stated that the delay is neither willful nor wanton and the Appeal is filed consequent on the recent survey conducted by the team of officials drafted for this purpose, who identified the land in question as communal land. The respondent failed to show sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of nearly more than eight years. The Revenue Divisional Officer instead of hearing the respondent/petitioner on question of delay condonation and examining it under Section 5 of the Limitation Act made finding that the Appeal is within 60 days from the date of knowledge and admitted the Appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer has not taken into consideration the survey conducted in the year 1967 before the commencement of the Act and the inspection report of the M.R.O., Tirupati (Rural) which clearly indicate that there is no ‘Kalva’ existing on the ground in Sy.No.378/2 of Tiruchanoor village. As such, the conclusion arrived in the impugned order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati are not based on factual facts existing on ground and contrary to Survey Records prepared on the survey conducted in the year 1967 and the same is liable to be set aside. In the above circumstances, I set aside the decision of the Inams Dy. Tahsildar, Chittoor published in District Gazette No.9 dated 3.9.1984 and the impugned orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati in D.Dis.No.615/2000 dated 20.10.2003 and confirm the orders passed by the Inams Dy. Tahsildar in S.R. No. 142/85 dated 26.10.1985 wherein he had granted Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner herein in respect of the schedule land. The Revision Petition is allowed accordingly”. No question of law has been raised except saying that the report of 1967-68 could not have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner, Appeals and the report submitted by the Tahsildar recently would indicate that there is a ‘kalva’, therefore, it is a ‘kalva poramboke’ and a certificate under the Inams Abolition Act ought not to have been issued. These are all pure questions of fact. The revisional authority, after detailed consideration of the material available on record, came to the conclusion that there is no ‘kalva’ available in the subject land and the litigation has been toiling in the Courts for more than 25 years. Therefore, no interference is required into the impugned order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 27-01-2011. MVB.