( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition relates to a land of Ac. 11. 98 cents in R. S. Nos. 29/1, 29/3, 48/12 and 48/3 of q uandam estate (the land) of Togummi village in Kovvur Taluk. The estate was taken over on 26th July, 1961 under the estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948. P. Raghava Ramacharyulu and P. Kodanda ramanujacharyulu, the two writ petitioners claimed patta to the land under section 13 before Settlement Officer, Eluru who granted a ryotwari Patta to them on 15th june, 1964. That order was reversed on 21st November, 1970 by the appellate authority and inquiry was remanded. Later, on 29th November, 1975 again patta was granted in favour of the two petitioners, which again was reversed by the appellate authority on 15th December, 1977. Hence, this writ petition by the two claimants. Their claim is resisted by the deity of Venkateswaraswami Varu. Whereas the two claimants are archakas of the same temple.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the writ petitioners at first assailed the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer and the appellate authority, He contends inter se disputes under section 13 of Act XXVI of 1948, the settlement Officer or the appellate authority cannot adjudicate under Act XXVI of 1948 and added curiously the Settlement Officer was right in having granted the patta in favour of the petitioners; the appellate authority was wrong in reversing the decision and granting a patta in favour of the deity.

( 3 ) THE question raised in this case was the subject of several decisions under the Act. The latest is M. Chayanna v. K. Narayana, (1979)2 S. C. J. 425 r (1979) 3 S. C. C. 42 : a. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1320 wherein two or three Bench decisions of this Court were reviewed. The decision in Appanua v. Sriramamurty, (1958) 1 An. W. R. 420 is affirmed. It is argued by the claimants there is no case where inter se dispute between the land holders was considered by this Court.

( 4 ) THE language of the sections 2 (a) and 15 was adverted to by the learned Counsel for the parties to contend that the Settlement officer as well as the appellate authority can only examine the nature and history of the lands under section 15 and decids the claim. The learned Counsel for the claimants read section 15 to emphasise the claimants for the lands are not taken in, whereas it ii contended on behalf of the deity that if the history of the land has to be taken into consideration the claim necessarily takes the rival claims under section 13. Without any reference to any decision, on a mere reading of the language used in clause (1) of section 15 it is clear the history with respect to the lands has to be inquired and in so doing one cannot escape decision of rival claims undej section 13 if the history points out In that view, the dispute between the rival landholders has to be adjudicated if on the facts such a decision is necessary. This is our answer to the principle question raised by the archaka claimants,

( 5 ) WHETHER archakas are entitled to ryotwari patta is the next question raised by the claimants. This issue was the subject of decision before the Tribunal. The tribunal was persuaded to grant patta in favour, of the deity on a admission made by P, Venkatacharyulu, predecessors of the claimants in an earlier suit of the year 1925, where he figured as 324th defendant. In that deposition be accepted the land in s. No. 39 which is the disputed land belonged to Sri Venkateswaraswamy Varu of Togummi. This admission was acted on in suit O. S. No. 26 of 1925. The judgment and decree therein were filed. Further, item No. 1 in that suit was described at "devudu Manyam" in the Commissioner s report of that suit: These two aspects were juxtaposed with documents Exhibit R-1 to r-8, the lease deeds, R-9 to R-11, sale deed, gift deed and settlement deed and on an appreciation of evidence it is held the land belonged to the deity, that the land did not belong to the archakas. The deity is entitled to the patta of the land.

( 6 ) THESE inferences