HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.20208 of 2002 Dated: 17-02-2011 Between: Nagireddy Chinna Venkata Reddy (died) per L.Rs. & Others …Petitioners AND The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa and others. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.20208 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the Gazette notification, dated 26.9.1997 issued under Section 3 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act’) notifying Timmayapalem village as Inam village, alleging that the respondent-authorities failed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act in notifying the said village as Inam village nor any enquiry was conducted into the said effect. N.China Venkata Reddy-deceased first petitioner is a resident of Timmayapalem village, Chitveli Mandal, Kadapa District, which is an Inam village. In the said village, he purchased 3/16th share from the original Inamdars and since then he is said to be in occupation of the land without any interruption. While so, a notice, dated 3.4.2002 was issued by the third respondent to Venkatalingam and Papi Reddy stating that the enquiry is being conducted on 6.4.2002 with regard to the inam village and in pursuance to the said notice, the said persons attended the enquiry but the respondent-authorities have been postponing the enquiry from time to time. It is stated that before issuing any Gazette notification or deciding whether the land is Inam or not, the respondent-authorities have to follow the due process contemplated under Section 3 of the Act and only after conducting an enquiry, the statutory duty of the respondent-authorities is to issue Gazette notification declaring the nature of the land and basing on the said nature of the land and persons whoever is effected are entitled to file an appeal against the said notification before the appropriate authority. But in the present case, the due procedure has not been followed by the respondents and without conducting any enquiry, notified the said village as Inam village and therefore, the impugned notification is liable to be quashed. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chitvel Mandal-third respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that as per Section 3 of the Act, notice in Form No.I was issued on 30.8.1993 to all the occupiers of the lands giving reasonable opportunities to file any objections, otherwise, it would be decided with material evidence. Such notice was also served to the first petitioner on 30.8.1993 along with other persons in the village and as no objections were received either by the villagers or by the first petitioner, the matter was decided under Section 3 of the Act and on completion of enquiry, it was decided on 30.7.1997 that (i) Thimmayapalem is an Inam land; (ii) Thimmayapalem is an Inam village; and (iii) It is not held by any institution. The said decision was printed in the District Gazette No.33-Kadapa on 26.9.1997 and the same was published in the village by beat of Tom-tom and was also affixed on the notice board of Gram Panchayat office, Thimmayapalem village. Thus all the requirements under Section 3 of the Act have been fulfilled and followed and no provisions of the Act have been violated. As per sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, any person is aggrieved by the decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3), can file an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer within sixty days from the date of communication of such decision. It is stated that the Gazette notification was printed on 26.9.1997 and published on 15.1.2002 in the village with the reason of non-completion of services of notices under Section 9(2) and Section 13 of Survey and Boundaries Act. After completion of the notification under Section 13 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, the further enquiries will be started to settle the lands to give ryotwari pattas. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners disputed that the petitioners were not served with any notice and denied the issuance of notice, dated 30.8.1993 calling objections before deciding the matter under Section 3 of the Act, records were called for. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader produced the records, which clearly shows that the notice in form No.I under Rule 3 was served on the first petitioner calling objections namely; (i)whether the land is an Inam land; (ii) whether such Inam land is in a Ryotwari, Zamindari or the Inam Village; and (iii) whether said Inam land is held by any institution, with regard to the various survey numbers mentioned in the said notice. By the said notice the first petitioner was called upon to appear before the respondent-authorities on 1.10.1993 along with the relevant records and that the said notice was served on the first petitioner and the said notice was acknowledged with the thumb impression of the first petitioner. Similar notices were also served on the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the publication of Gazette notification notifying the village as Inam village is without following the due process of law contemplated under Section 3 of the Act, does not merit consideration. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will file an appeal before the appropriate authority against the publication of impugned notification under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedies available to them, if law permits. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2011 Tsr.