(Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent made in Revision petition filed by the 4th respondent vide Commissioner Appeals Proc. No.V1/502/99, dt. 16.10.2003 and quash the same as illegal, null and void by confirming the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and to pass such other order or orders.) Heard Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narsu, learned counsel appearing for Mr. S.Jagadish, the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 2 to 3 and Mr. M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The 32 petitioners assail the order bearing reference No. VI/502/99 dated 16.10.2003 the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent – the Commissioner Appeals in the O/o the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad,. The revision was preferred to the 1st respondent by the 4th respondent u/Sec. 14-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956 (for short ‘the Inams Abolition Act, 1956’), aggrieved by the appellate order of the 2nd respondent in Inam Appeal No. 1/89 conforming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 31.07.1989 in RC.NO. C1/88. The revision was allowed.

The 4th respondent had filed a petition u/Sec.7 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 for grant of a Ryotwari Patta for Ac.410.57 cts in Pydipala Agraham (village), Tuni Taluk, East Godavari District. The petitioners herein objected to the 4th respondent’s claim for a patta. The 3rd respondent by the order dated 31.07.1989 rejected the 4th respondent’s petition. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent preferred Inams Appeal No.1/89 u/sec. 7(2) of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956, to the 2nd respondent. By the order dated 30.09.1996 the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal. The revision by the 4th respondent preferred u/Sec. 14-A of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 was allowed by the 1st respondent and hence the writ petition.

There is a protracted course of litigation preceding the impugned order. Reference to the several proceedings is relevant to the adjudication of the lis presented in this writ petition.

Chronology of relevant events and proceedings :-

(A) In 1136-F (about 1726 AD) the Zamindar of Pydipala Agraharam granted an inam of an extent of Ac. 410.57 cts (the schedule lands), in favour of the Uttaradhi Mutt (‘the Mutt’). In the year 1860 the inam was confirmed by the Inams Commissioner and a title deed No. 1905 was issued.

(B) An enquiry u/Sec. 9(1)(3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Estates Abolition Act, 1948’) was held in 1949 by the Settlement Officer, Vijayawada in SR No. 1/49 and an order dated 31.05.1950 was passed concluding that the grant in favour of the Mutt was of an ‘inam

estate’ as defined u/Sec. 2(7) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948.

(C) The Mutt preferred an appeal u/Sec. 9(4) to the Estates Abolition Tribunal (EAT) Vizianagaram against the order of the Settlement Officer dated 31.05.1950, in AS No. 247/50. By the order dated 24.09.1952 the EAT allowed AS No. 247/50 and held that the grant in favour of the Mutt was not of a ‘inam estate’ as defined u/Sec. 2(7) of the Estates Abolition Act 1948. This order was not challenged and has become final.

(D) In view of certain amendments including in 1956 to the provisions of Sec.3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act 1908 (for short ‘the Estates Land Act, 1908’) (amending the definition of the expression ‘estate’) the State Government referred the mater to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kakinada, u/Sec. 9(3) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. By an order dated 31.05.1960 in S.R.No. 1/1959, the Assistant Settlem