( 1 ) WE heard these cases earlier and we came across the vigilance report which had been submitted in pursuance of the earlier orders passed by a Division Bench of this court when the writ appeals were admitted. Since that report had not been made available to the parties, we thought it proper to hear the case again and give a chance to the parties to contest the report. Accordingly copies of the vigilance report were furnished to the parties who have filed their objections.

( 2 ) THE cases are before us in view of the orders of the Division Bench which referred the matter to the Full Bench, as it found that there were earlier judgments of this Court by division Bench with regard to the same subject matter.

( 3 ) IN the first instance, we will deal with the writ appeals. Both the writ appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 17-7-2000 in W. P. No. 35618 of 1997. W. A. No. 1088 of 2000 has been filed by the state, whereas W. A. No. 1163 of 2000 has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. The facts leading to filing of w. P. No. 35618 of 1997 may be summerised thus,

( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed by one sarvepalli Ramaiah challenging the order dt. 18-10-1997 passed by Revenue divisional Officer, Tirupati. His case was that the total extent of land in Sy. No. 246 was ac. 41-61 cents which was an Inam land and he was granted ryotwari patta in respect of ac. 9-00 out of Ac. 41-61 cents in Sy. No. 246 in Vallerugunta Patteda by the Inam Deputy tahsildar, Chittoor, after conducting enquiry under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act, 1956 on 6-12-1980. Thereafter he made representations to the Collector, Chittoor and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati to implement the order of the Inam Deputy tahsildar, Chittoor and grant him patta, but the State authorities issued a show-cause notice in Form No. V (Rule 5) proposing to conduct a suo motu enquiry to determine as to who is entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of Inam lands under Section 7 of the Andhra inams (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1956. This show-cause notice was challenged by the writ petitioner in w. P. No. 23413 of 1995 which was allowed on 5-12-1996 and the notice given was declared to be without jurisdiction. Thereafter the revenue authorities passed an order on 18-10-1997 declaring that the ryotwari patta purported to have been granted in favour of the writ petitioner by the inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor on 6-12-1980 was a non-existent order, it was not available in the official records and the patta was evidently a fabricated document and thus it was null and void. This order was challenged in W. P. No. 35618 of 1997. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner before a learned single Judge of this Court that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati was not competent authority to decide the matter and declare a patta issued by the competent authority as illegal and fabricated document. It was also contended that the entire proceedings of the revenue authorities were without jurisdiction and as such were invalid. After considering the rival arguments of the parties the learned single Judge gave the following directions:"admittedly, in this case, the Revenue divisional Officer, as appellate authority has no power to set aside the order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar. It is only if an appeal is brought before him he has got power to set aside the same and in the absence of such an appeal he has no suo motu power. Suo motu power is available to the revisional authority under Section 14-A of A. P. (A. A) Inams Abolition and conversion Act. Therefore, it is appropriate the revisional authority takes suo motu action and pass appropriate orders. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the revisional authority to initiate s