The court emphasized the importance of resolving disputed facts through denovo enquiry and directed the completion of the enquiry within a specified timeframe.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records and declaring the orders in Appeal Case Inam No.1885/2012/C, dt.22/12/2014, where under the 3rd respondent allowed the said appeal while setting aside the order in A I A C 53/1977/B dt.5/9/1996, to the extent of the land in S.No.20 of Purushothapuram admeasuring Ac.0.88 cents as bad, illegal and contrary to the provisions of The A.P.A.A Inams Abolition Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 and to quash the same..."

2. The case of the petitioner is that after the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act came into force with effect from 14/12/1956, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam who was authorized to conduct enquiry made a Suo moto enquiry under Sec. 5(3) of the Act has declared five villages of Adivivaram, Vepagunta, Venkatapuram, Purushothapuram, Cheemalapalli on different dates in the year 1977 and 1978 under different orders as Inam Lands held by Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, which was published under Sec. 6(a)(ii) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 30/87. The temple and as well as its properties were registered under Sec. 43 of the A.P. Endowments Act, 30/87.

3. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi who is the Primary Authority under the Inams Abolition Act conducted due enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 7(1) of the Inams Abolition Act and granted Ryotwari Pattas in favour of the Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Devasthanam vide A.LA.C.No.55 /77 B, dtd. 5/9/1996 for various extents and survey numbers of Purushothapuram village including the land in S. No.20 to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents out of which Ac.0.25 cents, which has become final.

4. While the matter being so, the 5th respondent had approached the 4th respondent in A.I.P. No.30/2010 under Sec. 7(1) of the Inam Abolition Act for grant of Form-VIII patta in respect of Inam dry land admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents claiming it as Bariki Service Inam said to have covered under T.D. No.488. The primary tribunal and Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, was pleased to adjudicate and finally held against the 5th respondent vide order dtd. 9/12/2010. Aggrieved by which the 5th respondent preferred an appeal under Sec. 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, before the 3rd respondent vide Appeal Case (Inam) No.1885/2012/C and the same was allowed by order dtd. 22/12/2014, while setting aside the Ryotwari Patta granted earlier by the primary tribunal in favour of the petitioner Devasthanam in A.I.A.C. No.55/77 B, dtd. 5/9/1996, to the extent of land claimed by the 5th respondent in S.No.20, admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents and has remanded the matter to the 4th respondent for conducting denovo enquiry to that effect.

5. Challenging which order, the present writ petition is filed on the main ground that the order and patta granted in A.I.A.C.No.53/1977/B dtd. 5/9/1996, in favour of the petitioner/Devasthanam has become final and the 5th respondent instead of challenging the same by way of an appeal as provided under Sec. 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, after a lapse of 14 years has filed a fresh application before the primary authority. Though the primary authority has rejected the same, the appellant authority has allowed the appeal by setting aside the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner/Devasthanam on 5/9/1996 by remanding the matter to the 4th respondent for conducting denovo enquiry to that effect.

6. When the matter came up for hearing on 25/6/2015, this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.24099 of 2015, has passed the following order:

" Pending further orders, the impugned order shall remain suspended."

7. Though the counter affidavit is not filed, the 5th respondent, have submitted the written submissions,