The court emphasized the violation of natural justice principles, specifically the right to be heard, in the context of administrative decisions under the Inams Abolition Act.

ORDER :

(B.S. BHANUMATHI, J .)

This revision is preferred against the order, dated 07.06.2022, allowing the revision filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein, in Ref. No.Sett.II(1)/156/2017, under Section 14A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam passed in D.Dis.No.11049/2015/C, dt.07.06.2017, confirming the order, dated 31.12.2013, of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, in AIP No.32 of 2013 granting ryotwari patta in favour of Smt. Peethala Papayamma w/o late Apparao for an extent of Ac.14.00 cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village covered by T.D No.3146.

2. Heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1^st respondent; Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2; Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent; and Sri N.V.S. Prasada Varma, learned counsel representing Sri B. Jagadish Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.7.

3. The chronology of events that lead to filing this revision petition, briefly stated, is as follows:

a. The claimant, Smt. Peethala Papayamma, filed a claim petition before the Primary Tribunal-cum-Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of inam dry land in Old Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village in the erstwhile Visakhapatnam taluk, now, in Pendurthi Mandal under T.D.No.3146. She filed the sale deeds and link documents in support of her claim over the said property. The claimant stated that the land in Sy.No.30 of Vepagunta village measuring an extent of Ac.42.05 cents stands registered as inam dry and it was registered in the name of Sri Ayyalasomayajula Viswanadham and Bondili Bagwansingh respectively. Out of the total land of Ac.42.05 cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village, half share holder, Sri Bondili Bagwansingh leased out an extent of Ac.21.02 ½ cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village covered by cashew and mango plantation in favour of her father-in-law, Peethala Appalaswamy S/o Ankulu initially for a period of 10 years for the Fasli 1352 to 1362, i.e., 15.04.1942 to 15.03.1952 @ R.50/- per year towards cowl. Thus, the entire land is under the occupation of her father-in-law, Sri Peethala Appalaswamy, and thereafter, under the occupation of her husband, Sri Peethala Apparao. The said land is an inam land and she is entitled to 2/3^rd share from out of the share of Ac.21.02 ½ cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village by virtue of the mukthagalla executed by her late father-in-law and requested to allow ryotwari patta for 2/3^rd share out of Ac.21.02 ½ cents held by the inamdar, Bondili Bagwansingh, under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Inam Abolition Act,1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

b. Pursuant to the common judgment, dated 15.04.1982, of this High Court in W.A.No.874 of 1982 and W.P.No.7599, 7586 and 7640 of 1982, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi, took up fresh enquiry under Section 3(1) of the Act and held that all the lands in the schedule ‘A’, i.e., Poramboke lands in an extent of Ac.583.13 cents and banjar lands in an extent of Ac.1.61 cents vest in the government, free from all encumbrances, and the lands in Schedule ‘B’ measuring an extent of Ac.639.77 cents vest with the diety of Simhachalam devasthanam and that the devasthanam is entitled to ryotwari patta for the lands in ‘B’Schedule.

c. Aggrieved by the said order, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam (‘Devasthanam’) authorities filed an appeal before the appellate authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. The then RDO, by proceedings, dated 28.02.1990, in AIA No.5 of 1989 dismissed the appeal preferred by the Devasthanam authorities and upheld the decision of the MRO, Pendurthi.

d. Thereupon, the Dev