JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---This petition is filed on 24-7-1991 by the legal heirs of one Devidas. The facts narrated in the petition are that the petitioner's father was holding Inam land survey No. 171 admeasuring 11 acres and 2 gunthas situated at Pingali, District Beed. It is stated that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act came into existence and all tenants cultivating the agricultural lands on or before 1950 were held as protected tenants and were declared as statutory owners under section 38-E. According to the petitioner, there was however, no tenant on the disputed land even after the enforcement of the Tenancy Act and the Inamdar continued to be the owner and possessor of the disputed land. It may however, be stated that this possession has been seriously disputed by the respondents relying upon certain documents to show that under section 38-E of the Act, the land was regranted to the tenant respondents. 2. The petitioners however, state that the respondent No. 3 was inducted on the land as tenant as per the Pahanipatrak in the year, 1957-58. Therefore, the petitioners' father started proceedings under section 17 for determination of proper rent and under section 32(2) read with section 44 for termination of tenancy. The Notices under section 32(2) was also issued and inquiry under section 38-E came to be started by the Tenancy authorities. It is however, stated that Hyderabad Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 came into force in 1960 and all Inam lands were taken away by the Government except the lands granted for enjoyment with a condition of rendering services to religious institution. It is stated by the petitioner that the land in question also came to be taken away by the Government wrongly and it was shown that the land vested in the Government. It is stated that as per the provisions of the said Act, the land became entitled to start payment of revenue and for the purpose of revenue the tenant found on the land respondent No. 2 was given possession and occupancy rights and such notice was given to petitioner's father. The petitioners have annexed the relevant notice and mutation entry at Exh. 4 collectively. It may be stated that it is clearly borne out from these documents that occupancy rights were granted to the respondent No. 3 under Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. 3. The petitioners have annexed the relevant notice and mutation entry at Exh. 4 collectively. It may be stated that it is clearly borne out from these documents that occupancy rights were granted to the respondent No. 3 under Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. 3. The petitioners have, therefore, clearly stated that though the petitioners' father objected to the notice issued by the Talathi under the Act of 1954, the authority did not accept his objection and, therefore, the proceedings which he has initiated under tenancy law became infructuous. The petitioners' father's application for awarding occupancy rights to himself instead of tenancy was also not considered because petitioners father filed application for compensation of 84 trees in the land and one Chirabandi constructed well with water to Rs. 10, 500/-, built up and grown up by grand father of the petitioners' father. Thereafter again he filed another application on 1-6-1996 for compensation stating all facts honestly before the Collector, Beed but, the matter was not considered by the Collector in the case for grant of compensation. Therefore, the matter for grant of compensation remained undecided for want of inquiry under section 10 of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act. 4. In para 6 of the petition, the petitioners give the details of the material on the basis of which compensation could be assessed. It is stated that the petitioners' father expired on 27-6-78 and therefore, the claim remained to be prosecuted. Therefore, the petition is filed. 5. In response to the notice, the State Government filed affidavit in reply and it is stated that the land in question was governed under the Inam Abolition Act and occupancy rights were granted in favour of the respondent No. 3, on 1-7-1960 under the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. It is also stated that nobody either from the original Inamdar or any interested person has challenged this grant of occupancy rights within the stipulated period and, therefore, declaration of occupancy rights has become final. The father of petitioners was having remedy to challenge this declaration before the Commissioner and then to the State Government by filing an appeal as provided under section 2-A of the Act but, he failed to do so. The father of petitioners was having remedy to challenge this declaration before the Commissioner and then to the State Government by filing an appeal as provided under section 2-A of the Act but, he failed to do so. Therefore, after a period of 33 years, the petitioners filed this writ petition without following proper channel of appeal and therefore, the present writ petition is not tenable. It is further stated that there was ample record to show that the respondent No. 3 was cultivating the land in dispute prior to 1950. The tenancy rights have been confirmed under Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Its possession has been admitted by the father of the petitioners by his own conduct when he proceeded against the respondent No. 3 under section 17, 32(2) and 38-E of the H.T. A.L. Act, 1950. It is further submitted that in fact, the land in dispute is Inam land and therefore, the provisions of Tenancy Act were not made applicable. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the father of the petitioners were dropped. 6. It is also stated that the petitioners' father filed application to the collector on 1-6-66 for compensation of trees and well. The matter of compensation still remained to be decided for want of inquiry under section 10 of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act. However, it is submitted that the father of the petitioners ought to have submitted an application for compensation under section 10(1) within one year from the appointed date i.e. 1-7-1960 as provided in Rule 10 of the Hyderabad Inams and Cash Grants Abolition Rules 1960. It is also stated that though the application dated 1-6-66 was itself contravening the provisions of section 6(6) of the Act, 1954, stood disposed of itself. Thus, the contentions of the petitioners in para 3 are not correct. 7. Mr. Dabir, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 to 7 also relies upon the various documents which are filed in affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents to show that the respondent No. 3 was granted occupancy rights and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 has his own title as the owner under the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. It is clear from the rival contentions that at no point of time, the land was governed that at no point of time , the land was governed under the H.T. A.L. Act, 1950 and the land was governed under the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. The correspondence on which the reliance is placed on by both sides also clearly points out that the respondent No. 3 was granted occupancy rights after following due procedure as laid down under the relevant Act. The occupancy rights, therefore, became final. 8. It is however, evident from the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that inquiry under section 10 of the Act on the basis of application made by petitioners' father on 1-6-66 could not be completed perhaps because, we believe that the petitioners' father was unable because of his old age to prosecute that proceedings. It is true that the application for compensation has to be made within the time stipulated under the relevant rule but, in the given set of circumstances, we think that since it is conceded on behalf of the State Government that the application for compensation is still undecided, in exercise of extraordinary power conferred onus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we direct the respondent State Government to decide the application of the father of the petitioners treating it as the petitioners application under section 10 of the said Act within a period of four months from the receipt of writ by giving opportunity of hearing to both sides i.e. petitioners as well as respondents. 9. In the circumstances, we allow the petition partly and make the rule absolute partly and direct the respondents State to decide the application of the petitioners' father dated 1-6-1966 within a period of four months by giving an opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioner but also to the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.