N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Ryotwari Patta under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "act") in respect of the land in Survey No. 246 of Vallerigunta patteda in Tiruchanur Village, Tirupathi rural Mandal. ( 2 ) FEW undisputed facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are the following : the petitioners are the legal heirs of one k. R. Krishna Reddy. Originally, the lands in Survey Nos. 243 to 260 of Vallerigunta patteda in Tiruchanur village were inam lands and M. Singarachari and others were the inamdars. Under a registered sale-deed dated 2-2-1970, K. R. Krishna Reddy purchased the lands in the said Survey Nos. from M. Singarachari and other inamdars. During the year 1979, the said lands were partitioned by a decree of the civil Court between K. R. Krishna Reddy and others. In the said partition, the land admeasuring ac. 41-61 cents in Survey No. 246 of vallerigunta Patteda in Tiruchanur village fell to the share of K. R Krishna. Reddy. The said K. R Krishna Reddy died in the year 1984 leaving behind the petitioners who are his legal heirs. ( 3 ) VIDE notifications dated 3-9-1984, 9-8-1985, 27-12-1985, 4-4-1986 and 29-7-1995, the Deputy Tahsildar in exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act passed an order notifying the land in an extent of Ac. 33-00 in Survey no. 246 and also other lands as Inam lands. Before publication of notifications, various persons obtained Ryotwari pattas, but the said pattas were set aside by the Revenue divisional Officer, Tirupathi, and a de novo enquiry was ordered. Challenging the same, writ Petition Nos. 10021 and 15961 of 1990 were filed, which were dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is correct. The order of learned single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1993 by judgment dated 29-1-1994. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, Deputy tahsildar Inams, first respondent, proceeded with the enquiry and granted Ryotwari pattas to various persons including K. R Krishna reddy. 1220 and 1221 of 1993 by judgment dated 29-1-1994. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, Deputy tahsildar Inams, first respondent, proceeded with the enquiry and granted Ryotwari pattas to various persons including K. R Krishna reddy. The first respondent vide proceedings sr No. 39/96 and SR No. 40/96 dated 30-1-1996 held that late K. R. Krishna Reddy and his predecessor namely vendors of krishna Reddy, were in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land as on 7-1-1948. In respect of land in S. No. 246, it was held that Inamdars were in exclusive possession and subsequently, K. R. Krishna Reddy came into possession of the said land and also observed that as on the date of vesting, the land in S. No. 246 of Vallerigunta Patteda in tiruchanur village was not in possession of the tenants. Except the legal representatives of K. R Krishna Reddy, no one claimed ryotwari patta in respect of land in s. No. 246 and as on the date of coming into force of the Act, the Inamdar was in possession of land in Survey No. 246. According to sub-section 2 (b) of Section 4 of the Act, any tenant who is in possession of the land on 7-1-1948, shall file an application before the Revenue Divisional officer (Revenue Court) for a declaration that he is or was a tenant on 7-1-1948 and has to obtain a declaration to that effect. If no application is filed under Section 5 (2) of the Act, the Inamdar will be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of the land. ( 5 ) AS mentioned above, no tenant had filed an application claiming that he is entitled to 2/3 rd of the land. The enquiry under Section 7 of the Act is controlled by section 4, which means that the tenant seeking Ryotwari patta under Section 7 must obtain a declaration under Section 5 of the act and only then Section 4 will come into operation. In the absence of declaration under Section 5 of the Act, Section 4 cannot be made applicable with regard to entitlement of Ryotwari patta. As the first respondent in his proceedings SR No. 39/96 and srno. In the absence of declaration under Section 5 of the Act, Section 4 cannot be made applicable with regard to entitlement of Ryotwari patta. As the first respondent in his proceedings SR No. 39/96 and srno. 40/96 dated 30-1-1996 held that inamdars were in possession of the land as on 7-1-1948, the petitioners being legal heirs of the purchaser, late K. R. Krishna Reddy, who purchased the land from Inamdars, are entitled to Ryotwari patta. Grant of Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act shall be preceded by entitlement and declaration and in their absence, the Inamdars are entitled for Ryotwari patta as contemplated under sub-sections 2 (B) and (C) read with Section 4 of the Act. Even if no patta is granted under Section 7, still they are entitled to ryotwari patta. As the petitioners are in continuous enjoyment and possession of the land, non-grant of Ryotwari patta will not disentitle or disable them to seek such a relief. Further, the provisions of the Act coming into force do not defeat the claim in respect of the Inamdars as the Act contemplates not only abolition but also conversion of land into Ryotwari. Sections 5, 7, 8 and 11 of the Act clearly indicate that the inam tenure continues till the grant of pattas. As late K. R. Krishna Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of the land by purchasing the same from Inamdars as on the date of coming into force of the Act on 7-1-1948, he is entitled to Ryotwari patta. Ignoring the petitioners entitlement, respondents have taken steps to deny their rights and have even taken steps to dispose of the land in Survey No. 246 for the purpose of construction of houses for the employees of the Revenue Department of Chittoor district. Thus averring, the petitioners sought that Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the act be granted in respect of land in S. No. 246 of Vallerigunta Patteda in Tiruchanur village, tirupathi Rural Mandal. ( 6 ) ON service of notice, respondents have put up appearance. The first respondent-Inam Deputy Tahsildar filed counter-affidavit denying the purchase of land by late K. R. Krishna Reddy, Inamdars were in possession of the land in S. No. 246 and subsequently, K. R. Krishna Reddy continued to be in possession as on the date of vesting. ( 6 ) ON service of notice, respondents have put up appearance. The first respondent-Inam Deputy Tahsildar filed counter-affidavit denying the purchase of land by late K. R. Krishna Reddy, Inamdars were in possession of the land in S. No. 246 and subsequently, K. R. Krishna Reddy continued to be in possession as on the date of vesting. According to respondents, nobody was in possession of the land in s. No. 246 and it was tank poramboke and hence no one is entitled to patta. According to the respondents, publication under section 3 (3) of the Act was made in respect of S. Nos. 243 to 260 during the year 1984. In respect of land in Sy. No. 246, the notification under Section 2-A of the Act was made on 13-9-1984 declaring that the said land is a tank poramboke, which has become final and hence, the question of considering petitioners claim does not arise. With regard to the allegation that in respect of other survey numbers, pattas were granted but not in respect of Sy. No. 246, it is stated that the grant of pattas in respect of other survey numbers have been challenged before the Revenue Divisional officer, who is the Appellate Authority under the Act and who in turn remanded the matter to the first respondent for further enquiry. Aggrieved by the order of Revenue divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Writ Petition nos. 10021 of 1990, 15961 of 1990 and writ Petition No. 7048 of 1991 were filed before this Court. The said writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge on 30-7-1993 against which Writ Appeal nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1993 were preferred. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 29-1-1994 disposed of the appeal directing de novo enquiry. Thereafter, the first respondent had conducted enquiry and passed orders on 12-3-1999 confirming that the land in S. No. 246 is a tank poramboke and as such vested in the Government. The said proceedings of the first respondent are not challenged by the petitioners, but other persons have filed appeal against the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, the fist respondent admitted that he had granted ryotwari pattas by order dated 30-1-1996 in sr No. 39/96 and SR No. 40/96 in respect of the land in S. No. 243 and other S. Nos. and not in respect of S. No. 246. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, the fist respondent admitted that he had granted ryotwari pattas by order dated 30-1-1996 in sr No. 39/96 and SR No. 40/96 in respect of the land in S. No. 243 and other S. Nos. and not in respect of S. No. 246. The said order was challenged and the appeals are pending before the Appellate Authority. Some applications seeking pattas in respect of above survey numbers are also pending before the first respondent. ( 7 ) IN the additional counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is admitted that earlier notification was issued under section 3 (3) of the Act stating that lands in Vallerigunta Patteda are inam lands and that out of an extent of Ac. 41-61 cents in Sy. No. 246. Ac. 18-00 was notified on 3-9-1984 and Ac. 15-00 was notified on 27-12-1985. The first respondent on noticing the mistake issued erratum in respect of sy. No. 246 vide notification dated 3-2-1986 showing that Sy. No. 246 in an extent of ac. 41-61 cents is a tank poramboke and in respect of notification dated 3-9-1984 in an extent of Ac. 18-00, the Mandal Revenue officer had filed an appeal before the assistant Collector, Tirupathi, who is the appellate Authority. The Appellate authority set aside the decision of the first respondent-Deputy Tahsildar Inams by an order dated 9-6-1987. Challenging the same, writ Petition Nos. 2661 and 7667 of 1987 filed were allowed by this Court by order dated 22-12-1987 against which Writ appeal Nos. 941 and 1070 of 1988 were preferred. The said WAs. , were disposed of on 13-4-1992 with a direction to the Inams deputy Tahsildar that before passing order sunder Section 3 (3) of the Act, he has to issue notices to the parties. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent conducted an enquiry and declared the entire extent of ac. 113-67 1/2 cents as communal poramboke called "peddacheruvu" falling under Section 2-A of the Act by order dated 11-5-1993. However, the enquiry in respect of Sy. No. 246 could not be conducted as several writ petitions and writ appeals were pending before this Court. In respect of notification dated 27-12-1985 concerning ac. 15-00 in Sy. No. 246, it is stated that the first respondent issued erratum in the Gazette dated 3-2-1986 as the said Sy. However, the enquiry in respect of Sy. No. 246 could not be conducted as several writ petitions and writ appeals were pending before this Court. In respect of notification dated 27-12-1985 concerning ac. 15-00 in Sy. No. 246, it is stated that the first respondent issued erratum in the Gazette dated 3-2-1986 as the said Sy. No. 246 is tank poramboke and as it was inadvertently published as "inam dry". Further, Sy. No. 243 to 260 totalling Ac. 143-72 cents is in vallerigunta Patteda, which is part of tiruchanur village and K. R. Krishna Reddy claimed the entire extent of land on the ground that he purchased the same through sale deed dated 2-2-1970 from the original inamdars. The said claim of late K. R. Krishna Reddy was rejected by the Deputy tahsildar Inams by order dated 15-7-1983 in IDT No. 1 of 1983 holding that he was already granted Ryotwari patta for 1/3 share. Aggrieved by the same, K. R. Krishna Reddy filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional officer, Tirupathi, and also filed Writ Petition no. 8580 of 1993, which was disposed of by this Court on 25-8-1986 with a direction to the RDO to dispose of the appeal under section 7 (2) of the Act. The Appellate authority passed order on 30-6-1990 allowing the appeal and remanded the matter to the first respondent for de novo enquiry. While remanding, the Revenue Divisional officer observed that Ryotwari patta issued for an extent of Ac. 70-88 cents is invalid. When things stood thus, T. Rajaram and five others aggrieved by the order of the revenue Divisional Officer dated 30-6-1990 filed Writ Petition No. 10021 of 1990. Likewise, P. Subbaraya Filial and seven others also filed Writ Petition No. 15961 of 1990. M/s. Estage Hotels, Madras, also filed Writ Petitio No. 7048 of 1991 on the ground that they purchased a portion of the land from K. R. Krishna Reddy, who died when Writ Petition No. 8580 of 1993 was pending before this Court. The legal heirs of Krishna Reddy gave General Power of attorney to T. C. Munaswamy Naidu, who sold some lands to M/s. Estaje Hotels, madras. One Smt. Hema Varadarajan was impleaded in Writ Petition No. 10021 of 1990 claiming "vallerigunta patteda" in an extent of 5/8th share on the ground that she is the heir of one Vangipuram Srinivasa dikshithulu of Tiruchanur. One Smt. Hema Varadarajan was impleaded in Writ Petition No. 10021 of 1990 claiming "vallerigunta patteda" in an extent of 5/8th share on the ground that she is the heir of one Vangipuram Srinivasa dikshithulu of Tiruchanur. This Court by its order dated 30-7-1993 dismissed Writ petition Nos. 10021 of 1990, 15961 of 1990 and 7048 of 1991 with an observation that the first respondent shall dispose of the remanded case within six months. Accordingly, on 22-10-1993 paper publication was effected in the daily newspaper "andhra Jyothi" calling for objections. T. Rajaram and five others filed Writ Appeal nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1993 against the order in Writ Petition No. 10021 of 1990 and the same were dismissed by judgment dated 29-1-1994 with a direction to the fist respondent to dispose of the remanded case by giving wide publicity. Following the same, paper publication was caused on 13-4-1995 and 10-6-1995 calling of objections in respect of lands in Vallerigunta patteda. The first respondent passed orders on 12-3-1999 holding that the land in sy. No. 246 of Tiruchanur village is not inam land, but it is a communal land classified as tank poramboke. The earlier proposal for conversion of the said land into house sites was subsequently dropped. In view of sections 2-A and 7-A of the Act, Ryotwari patta in respect of land vested in the State cannot be granted. Thus averring, the respondents sought that the petition be dismissed. ( 8 ) WITH the permission of the Court, the petitioners filed reply affidavit wherein they reiterated the contentions already raised in support of the writ petition. It is contended that the claim of the petitioners in an extent of Ac. 18-00 cannot be rejected as against the order passed by the first respondent under Section 3 (3) of the Act, the appeal filed before the Appellate authority was also rejected and this Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 9-6-1987 and directed the respondents to initiate, action under Section 7 of the Act for grant of Ryotwari patta to an extent of ac. 18-00 in Sy. No. 246. In Writ Appeal nos. 941 and 1070 of 1988, this Court held that the view taken by first and second respondents in respect of land in an extent of Ac. 18-00 in Sy. No. 246 is covered by section 2-A of the Act has no merit. 18-00 in Sy. No. 246. In Writ Appeal nos. 941 and 1070 of 1988, this Court held that the view taken by first and second respondents in respect of land in an extent of Ac. 18-00 in Sy. No. 246 is covered by section 2-A of the Act has no merit. As far as the extent of Ac. 15-00 in the same sy. No. 246 is concerned, the same was notified as inam land by the first respondent by passing order under Section 3 (3) of the act in the Gazette on 27-12-1985. The same was not challenged before any appellate Authority. The said Ac. 15-00 became inam land for which the petitioners are entitled for Ryotwari patta. The order passed by the first respondent on 12-3-1999 holding that land in Sy. No. 246 is a tank poramboke is contrary to the earlier decisions of this Court in Writ Petition nos. 2661 and 7677 of 1987 and Writ Appeal nos. 1070 and 941 of 1988 wherein this court directed the first respondent to pass reasoned order under Section 3 (3) of the act. It is further averred that the order of the first respondent dated 12-3-1999 is contrary to the direction given by the division Bench of this Court in Writ appeal Nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1993 dated 29-1-1994. The first respondent passed orders on 30-1-1996 pursuant to the direction in Writ Appeal Nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1993 granting Ryotwari pattas to various survey numbers, but consideration of granting pattas in respect of Sy. No. 246 could not be taken up as there were interim orders granted by this Court on 10-11-1995 in wpmp No. 31256 of 1995 in Writ Petition no. 25373 of 1996 wherein Narasimha Sastry claimed that he has got Ryotwari patta in respect of Sy. No. 246 and this Court ordered the first respondent not to hold enquiry in respect of Sy. No. 246 till the disposal of the writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10-6-1996. It is further averred that the land in Sy. No. 246 was divided into four parts out of which ac. 22-26 cents of land was claimed by the employees working in the Revenue department of Chittoor District and that in the counter filed by Mandal Revenue officer, the remaining area in the same survey number is available for house sites. It is further averred that the land in Sy. No. 246 was divided into four parts out of which ac. 22-26 cents of land was claimed by the employees working in the Revenue department of Chittoor District and that in the counter filed by Mandal Revenue officer, the remaining area in the same survey number is available for house sites. Further, in the counter filed by the MRO in Writ Petition No. 3032 of 1996, it is clear that there is no tank in Sy. No. 246. One more circumstance, according to the petitioners, is that a number of applications were dismissed except the application of the petitioners for ryotwari patta and the said application is still pending and thus they are entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act. ( 9 ) IN support of the stand taken by either party, both sides addressed arguments. The contentions urged "at the time of arguments are nothing but reiteration of the grounds in the writ petition and also in the counter-affidavits. In order to know what is the nature of the land in the Sy. No. in question and when it became tank poramboke and whether the notifications were caused under Section 3 (3) of the Act after hearing the petitioners and other persons interested, we perused the entire file and the record available with the government. The record reveals that notification of land in Sy. No. 246 as tank poramboke is a subsequent action and the first Ac. 18-00 in Sy. No. 246 was notified as inam land and by erratum dated 3-2-1996, the same was deleted from the caption "inam". But, before deleting or amending the earlier notification dated 3-9-1984 or subsequent notifications, no notice was served on the persons interested and they were not heard. ( 10 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions, it is appropriate to extract the following sections of the Act:"2-A. Transfer to, and vesting in the government of all communal lands, porambokes etc. , in inam lands : notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all communal lands and porambokes, grazing lands, waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank-beds and irrigations works, steams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inam lands shall stand transferred to the government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. 3. , in inam lands : notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all communal lands and porambokes, grazing lands, waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank-beds and irrigations works, steams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inam lands shall stand transferred to the government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. 3. Determination of inam lands :as soon as may be, after the commencement of this Act, the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall on application enquire and determine: (1) Whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land; (ii) Whether such inam land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam village; (iii) Whether such inam land is held by any institution. (2) Before holding such enquiry, tahsildar shall cause to be published in the village or town where the inam lands are situate a notice in the prescribed manner requiring every person or institution claiming an interest in any such inam land, to file before him, a statement of particulars in respect of items (i) (ii) and (iii) in sub-section (1) within the prescribed time. (3) The Tahsildar shall thereafter give the persons or institutions concerned a reasonable opportunity of adducing any evidence in support of their cases and may also examine any relevant documents in the possession of the government and give his decision in writing in regard to items (i) (ii) and (iii) in sub-section (1) and communicate the decision to the persons or institutions concerned. 4. Conversion ofinam lands into Ryotwari lands : (1) In the case of an inam land in a Ryotwari or zamindari village the person or institution holding such land as inamdars or the date of commencement of this Act shall be entitled to a Ryotwari patta in respect thereof. 4. Conversion ofinam lands into Ryotwari lands : (1) In the case of an inam land in a Ryotwari or zamindari village the person or institution holding such land as inamdars or the date of commencement of this Act shall be entitled to a Ryotwari patta in respect thereof. (2) In the case of inam land in an inam village: (a) if, such a land is held by any institution on the date of commencement of this Act, such institution shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land; (b) if such a land is held by an inamdar other than an institution on the date of commencement of this Act, and is in his actual occupation on the said date, the tenant who is declared to be in occupation of that land on the 7th January, 1948, by the Revenue court under sub-section (3) of section 5, or the Collector under subsection (5) of that section, as the case may be, shall be entitled to a Ryotwari patta for two-thirds share of that land and the inamdars shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta for the remaining one- third share thereof; and if no tenant has filed an application before the revenue Court under sub-section (2) of that section within the period specified therein, the inamdars shall be entitled to a Ryotwari patta in respect of that land; (c) If such a land is held by an inamdar other than an institution on the date of commencement of this Act, but is in the occupation of a tenant on the said date, the tenant who is declared to be in occupation of that land on the 7th January, 1948, by the Revenue court under sub-section (3) of section 5, or the Collector under subsection (5) of that section, as the case may be, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta of two-thirds share of that land and the inamdars shall be entitled to a Ryotwari patta for the remaining one-third share thereof and if no tenant has filed an application before the Revenue court under sub-section (2) of that section within the period specified therein the tenant in the occupation of the land on the date of commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to ryotwari patta for two-thirds share of that land and the inamdars shall be entitled to Ryotwari patta for the remaining one-third share thereof. (3) The one-third share of the inam land in occupation of the tenant in respect of which the inamdars is entitled to a Ryotwari patta under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be the compensation payable to the inamdar in lieu of the extinguishments of his rights in two thirds share of such land. 5. Reinstatement of tenants who were in occupation of inam lands in inam villages on the 7th January, 1948 but were evicted from such lands before the commencement of this Act : (1) Any tenant who was in occupation of an inam land in an inam village on the 7th January, 1948 but who is not in occupation thereof at the commencement of this Act having been evicted from such land by or at the instance of the inamdars whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise shall be entitled to be restored to occupation of that land as hereinafter provided. Explanation :for the purposes of this section the expression inamdars includes an institution. (2) Any tenant who is entitled to be restored to occupation of an inam land under sub-section (1) may, within three months after the publication of the decision of the Tahsildar or the Revenue court, as the case may be, in the District gazette, under sub-section (6) of section 3, file an application in the prescribed form before the Revenue court for a declaration that he was in occupation of the inam land on the 7th January, 1948, and for restoration of occupation thereof. (3) When an application is filed under sub-section (2), the Revenue Court shall cause to be served in the prescribed manner, a notice requiring the inamdars and if there is any other person who came into occupation for the inam land after the 7th January, 1948, and is in occupation thereof on the date of commencement of this Act also the other person aforesaid, to file before it within the prescribed period, objections if any, to the application and after giving the tenant, inamdars and such other person, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after considering the objections, if any, filed before it passes an order either allowing the application or dimissing it. In an order allowing the application, the Revenue Court may impose such conditions as it may consider just and equitable including any condition in regard to reimbursement to the inamdars or such other person, as the case may be by the applicant in respect of nay labour done and any expenses incurred for the improvement of the land by the inamdars or such other person during the period of his possession or occupation, if there is no agreement between the parties as regards the rate and manner of such reimbursement. 7. Grant of Ryotwari pattas : (1) As soon as may be after commencement of this Act and subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall, on application by a person or an institution, after serving a notice in the prescribed manner on all the persons or institutions interested in the grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the inam lands concerned and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and examining all the relevant records, determine the persons or institutions entitled to Ryotwari pattas in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and grant them Ryotwari patta in the prescribed form. (2) Any person or institution aggrieved by the grant of Ryotwari patta by the tahsildar under sub-section (1) may appeal to the Revenue Court within sixty days from the date of such grant, and the Revenue Court may, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit. (3) The decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (2), and where no appeal is filed, the decision of the tahsildar under sub-section (1) shall be final. (4) Where the Revenue Court declares under sub-section (2) that a person or an institution different from the person or institution to whom a Tahsildar has granted a Ryotwari patta under subsection (1) is entitled to Ryotwari patta the Tahsildar shall cancel the Ryotwari patta granted by him and grant a fresh ryotwari patta in accordance with the decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (2 ). (5) In the case of inam lands held by an inamdars other than an institution in an inam village, if an application is filed under sub-section (2) of Section 5 within the period specified in that subsection, no tenant or inamdars shall be granted a Ryotwari patta under subsection (1) until the decision of the revenue Court under sub-section (3) of section 5 or of the Collector under subsection (5) of that section, as the case may be, is given. " ( 11 ) UNDER Section 3, after commencement of the Act of 1956, the tahsildar either suo motu or on the application shall enquire and determine the nature of the land and issue apropriate orders. From the information furnished by both sides, it is clear that while passing an order under Section 3 (3) of the Act, deletion of a portion of the land namely ac. 18-00 from the caption "inam" was done without notice to the persons interested. As on the date of enquiry under section 3 (3), the finding of the respondents on the objections filed either by the petitioners or others was to the effect that no tenant was in occupation of the land on the date of commencement of the Act or on the date of vesting. There is no dispute that Ac. 15-00 in Sy. No. 246 was allowed to continue as inam land by notification under Section 3 (3) of the Act and the said position was not challenged before the Appellate Authority. The respondents contend that the land in sy. No. 246 is a tank poramboke and thus it is vested in the Government. Section 2-A was brought into effect by Amending Act 2 of 1975. The record maintained by the revenue Department does not disclose that prior to the year 1975, the land in Sy. No. 246 was shown as tank poramboke. The proceedings of this Court both in writ petitions either by petitioners and writ appeals declared the enquiry conducted either by the first respondent or by the second respondent as incorrect and arbitrary. Further, some portion of land in sy. No. 246 was sought to be transferred for the purpose of house sites. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the respondents took a stand that the land in Sy. Further, some portion of land in sy. No. 246 was sought to be transferred for the purpose of house sites. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the respondents took a stand that the land in Sy. No. 246 was poramboke and no Ryotwari patta can be granted and it is a plea to circumvent the earlier direction given by this Court. The reference made by the respondents to the order dated 12-3-1999 passed by the first respondent does not bind the petitioners as that order was passed without notice to the petitioners. Further, the said order was passed on the applications filed by C. Mani and 14 others whose claim was rejected as all the documents produced by them were found bogus and fabricated. ( 12 ) THE earlier order of the Deputy tahsildar in SR No. 39 of 1996 and SR no. 40 of 1996, dated 30-1-1996 clearly shows that the petitioners are inamdars. The enquiry in regard to the grant of Ryotwari patta for Sy. No. 246 could not be taken up as several proceedings were pending before this Court. When the proceedings in respect of Sy. No. 246 concluded, there is no impediment for the authority to grant ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act to the petitioners. When the first respondent notified in the Gazette that the land in sy. No. 246 is inam land, subsequently to describe the same as poramboke is quite incorrect. A portion of the land Ac. 18-00 in sy. No. 246 was the subject matter in Writ petition Nos. 2661 of 1987 and 7677 of 1987 and the same was concluded upholding the petitioners contention that the said land is inam land. Subsequent amendment to the notification showing a portion of the land in sy. No. 246 not as inam land, as observed earlier, is not only illegal, but the same is the result of misuse of powers. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal revenue Officer in WP No. 3032 of 1996 discloses that Sy. No. 246 was surveyed by the authorities under the provisions of A. P. Survey and Boundaries Act. At the time of survey, it was found that Ac. 22-00 of land in the said survey number was not part of the tank poramboke and observed that the land is available for grant of Ryotwari patta under the Act. No. 246 was surveyed by the authorities under the provisions of A. P. Survey and Boundaries Act. At the time of survey, it was found that Ac. 22-00 of land in the said survey number was not part of the tank poramboke and observed that the land is available for grant of Ryotwari patta under the Act. If the land was not fit for granting Ryotwari patta and if there exists a tank poramboke, the same should not have been divided into several parts and proposed for house sites to the employees of Revenue department. The decision of the first respondent holding that Sy. No. 246 is a tank poramboke is therefore in violation of the direction given by the Higher Authorities which has been clearly mentioned by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3032 of 1996. When the first respondent held that the application filed by C. Mani and others in respect of Sy. No. 246 is bogus and no other application is pending grant of patta, respondents should have granted ryotwari patta to the petitioners as they are successors in title and continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. When once the land is shown as inam land, the inam tenure will continue till Ryotwari patta is granted. The decision of the first respondent and the subsequent inaction of respondents 2 and 3 to grant Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act to the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. Since the petitioners established that the land in question was originally inam land and it was in possession of the inamdars as on the date of coming into force of the Act and it was free from tenancy even as on the date of vesting then by virtue of the purchase of the land by K. R. Krishna Reddy under registered sale deed and after his death, petitioners the legal representatives of K. R. Krishna Reddy are entitled for Ryotwari patta. When this was brought to the notice of the Court, the contention of the petitioners was upheld and direction was issued to consider the petitioners case for grant of Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act. But the respondents 1 to 3 refused to exercise the power conferred on them properly and committed an error in not granting Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act. But the respondents 1 to 3 refused to exercise the power conferred on them properly and committed an error in not granting Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act. If the land in question was tank poramboke, the first respondent would not have passed orders under Section 3 (3) of the Act. The same authorities granted pattas in respect of other survey numbers, but refused to grant pattas to the petitioners in respect of Sy. No. 246. As such, the action of respondents is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. When the finding of the authorities is to the effect that the land was never tenanted, they should have noticed that no impediment exists to register the land in question in favour of petitioners by granting them Ryotwari pattas. In fact, the conduct of the authorities in trying to take different stands in respect of Sy. No. 246 suggests that they sought to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate right. From the material produced and supported by earlier orders of this Court and other authorities, it is clear that the petitioners have established that they are entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act. Further, the so-called order, dated 12-3-1999 passed by the first respondent does not bind the petitioners. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the act in respect of the land claimed by them in Sy. No. 246 of Vallerigunta Patteda in tiruchanur village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal forthwith. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.