The Tahsildar must conduct a quasi-judicial enquiry under Section 7(1) of the Andhra Inams Abolition Act, 1956, and pass a speaking order determining the persons entitled to a ryotwari patta. The appellate authority should excuse delay in filing an appeal and direct the Tahsildar to conduct such an enquiry.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the order of our learned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J. , dismissing Writ Petition No. 310 of 1967.

( 2 ) THE writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet dismissing an application filed by the petitioners to excuse the delay in filing an appeal before him under the provisions of the Andhra Inams Abolition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and in the alternative to quash the patta issued by the Inams Tahsildar on 24-8-1966.

( 3 ) THE dispute is as regards certain service Inam lands bearing S. No. 52 about Ac. 5-77 cents in extent, T. D. No. 1114, situate in the village Pasumarru. An enquiry under Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Inams Abolition Act, 1956 was conducted, as a result of which it was held that the Inam lands belong to individuals situated in a ryotwari village The decision under Section 3 was duly published on 30-10-1961.

( 4 ) THEREFORE Respondents 2 and 3 in the Writ Petition, hereinafter referred to "as respondent". filed applications for the grant of a ryotwari patta. In pursuance of these applications a notice was issued to them fixing a date of hearing. It is stated that at the hearing the respondents and the village Karnam and some others were examined in support of the respondents clam for obtaining a patta. On the basis of this enquiry a patta was issued under Section 7 in favour of the respondents.

( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY in a dispute between the petitioners and the respondents in criminal cases regarding possession, the respondents produced the patta granted in their favour. The petitioners at once applied for a certified copy of the order under Section 7 of the Act; but they received an endorsement stating that there were no proceedings under the said section. But they where given a copy of the patta issued in favour of the respondents. The petitioners thereupon filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer with an application to excuses the delay in filing the appeal stating that they had no notice of the enquiry under Section 7 of the Act and that they knew about the issue of patta only when it was produced by the respondents in the criminal case. The application to condone the delay was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed the above writ petitioning this Court seeing to quash the order of the appellate authority as will as the issue of patta by the Tahsildar.

( 6 ) THE learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that he is not prepared to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Revenue Divisional Officer in refusing to condone the delay. In this appeal we have called for the entire record and on a scrutiny of the same we find that though some statements were recorded under Section 7 of the Act, no order was passed by the Tahsildar as contemplated therein. The file only shows the following order:------- "for orders whether pattas may be prepared. . . . . . . . . . . . put up the Act. . . . . . . . . . . Act put up. Issue patta. 24-8-66"

( 7 ) A perusal of the provisions of Section 7 sub-clause (1) of the Act shows that the Tahsildar should either suo motu or on application filed before him, serve notices on persons interested in the grant of ryotwari patta. After giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and examining all the relevant records, the Tahsildar should determine the persons entitled to ryotwari patta in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and grant them ryotwari patta in the prescribed form. There can be no doubt that these provisions envisage a quasi-judicial enquiry to be conducted by the Inams Tahsildar. A similar view was expressed by Ramachandra Rao, J. , in Writ Petition No. 4928, dated 17-3-1970. sub-Clause (2) of Section 7 provides an appeal against the said order before the Revenue divisional Officer. Under the relevant rulers an authenticated copy of such order should be filed along with th