The petitioners feel aggrieved by an order, dated 13.03.2006, passed by the Joint Collector, Kadapa, the 1st respondent herein, in exercise of power under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act').

The facts, that gave rise to the passing of impugned order, are as under: There is a dispute as to the ownership of rights in survey Nos.336 (Ac.0.56 cents) and 480 (Acs.14.35 cents) of Sivapuram Village, Mydukur Mandal, Kadapa District. The petitioners assert that the land was owned by their ancestors and it has accrued to them by succession. Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Sivapuram, also laid claim, vis--vis the land. The 7th respondent, one of the devotees, pleaded that the land was endowed to the Temple. At one stage, the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., were initiated, in respect of the land. This was followed by issuance of proceedings, dated 18.02.2003, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, on the directions of the District Collector, Kadapa, for harvesting of the crop, existing over the land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3631 of 2003. The same was allowed, and the proceedings, dated 18.02.2003, were set aside, by observing that they are not referable to any provision of law. By that time, the pattadar pass books were existing in favour of the petitioners, and the Temple- authorities filed a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, before the 1st respondent herein. This Court directed the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the revision, pending before him, as expeditiously as possible. In compliance with the said direction, the 1st respondent disposed of the revision. He observed that the ryotwari patta issued to the ancestors of the petitioners under the A.P. (A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Inams Act'), was improper, and on that premise, he found fault with the issuance of pattadar pass books, in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that there was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent to interfere with the ryotwari patta granted in favour of their family under the provisions of the Inams Act, particularly when no proceedings were initiated, vis-à-vis the same. Other grounds are also urged. Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that, it was only a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, that was pending before the 1st respondent, and travelling beyond the scope of the proceedings, the 1st respondent determined the validity of the ryotwari patta, issued to his clients.

He submits that the 1st respondent converted the proceedings into those under the Inams Act and there is total lack of coherence in the proceedings. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent-Temple and learned counsel for the impleaded parties, on the other hand, submit that the 1st respondent has only set aside the pattadar pass books and it is in the process of reasoning, that he pointed out the defects in the ryotwari patta.

The petitioners approached this Court, on an earlier occasion, by filing W.P.No.3631 of 2003, feeling aggrieved by the action of the revenue authorities in trying to take away the crop. This Court took note of the fact that a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act was already pending before the 1st respondent herein, in relation to the issuance of pattadar pass books to the petitioners. It is during the course of hearing of the revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, that reliance was placed by the petitioners upon the ryotwari patta issued under the Inams Act. The Temple-authorities, on the other hand, placed reliance upon the entries in their favour as well as the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Endowments Act').

After making reference, the 1st respondent took note of the fact that as per the RSR of Sivapuram village, the name of "Ma