S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by four petitioners praying for the issue of a writ or direction declaring the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella division, Ranga Reddy District in Case nos. L/3842/1982 and L/3843/1982 as illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and to pass such other order or orders. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioners are some of the applicants before the Inams Tribunal, who filed applications for the issue of a certificate recognising their right as successors of the Inamdar. It is stated by the petitioners that one Shehzadi jahandarunisa Begum, also known as Lady vicar, owned several properties including the inam lands of Begumpet, Ranga Reddy district, within the limits of Municipal corporation of Hyderabad. After due enquiry the Atiyat Authority, Government of Hyderabad, issued a Muntakab in favour of the said Inamdar in Muntakab No. 9 of 1950, dated 13-10-1950. The said Inamdar died leaving behind her one son by name sultan-Ul-Mulk and daughter by name liaqatunissa Begum. It is further stated that the said son also died leaving behind him six sons, whose names are furnished in the affidavit. It is also stated that the said legal heirs appeared before the Atiyat Authorities and the Nazim-e-Atiyat, Government of hyderabad, by order dated 30th July, 1959 in File No. 9 of 1987, recognised the aforesaid legal heirs in the succession proceedings in respect of the inam lands of begumpet. It is also stated that the petitioners 2 to 4 are the descendants of the original Inamdar-Lady Vicar. It is further stated that all the properties in Sy. Nos. 194/1 to 194/12 situated in Begumpet in respect of which the claim was being made are covered by several buildings, out-houses and servant quarters, some of which are even century old. All these properties were constructed by the original Inamdar, Lady Vicar and these lands are both on land and under law are non-agricultural lands. It is also stated that the petitioners have been paying non-agricultural assessments from time to time as demanded by the authorities and they are also willing to pay the non-agricultural assessment dues in respect of the lands in question. As these lands are within the limits of Municipal Corporation of hyderabad, they are governed by the Andhra pradesh and Hyderabad Urban Development act, 1975 and the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act, 1964. As these lands are within the limits of Municipal Corporation of hyderabad, they are governed by the Andhra pradesh and Hyderabad Urban Development act, 1975 and the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act, 1964. Therefore, these properties are governed by the provisions of section 9 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 3 ) IT is stated that the properties of lady Vicar and also the properties of Sir vicar, husband of Lady Vicar, were taken under the supervision of Board of Trust and later they came under the supervision of court of Wards. However, the properties of lady Vicar including the Inam Lands of begumpet were finally released in favour of her legal heirs under G. O. Ms. No. 341, dated 17-2-1959. The said properties from the date of release are in possession and enjoyment of the legal heirs of lady Vicar. While so the legal heirs of Sir Vicar filed a suit for partition in OS No. 47 of 1965 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are the parties to the said suit. In the said suit, the plaintiff wrongly included all the personal properties: including the inam lands in Begumpet belong to Lady Vicar in respect of which the legal heirs of Sir Vicar had no right. The civil Court, therefore, rejected the claim of the plaintiff therein, but however held that in respect of the inam lands the matter should be dealt with by the authorities under the said Act. Therefore, the Petitioners have approached the 1st respondent with an application, said to be under Section 4 of the Act, for the grant of occupancy Certificate. It is stated that though the applications were made under section 4, the lands in question are not governed by the said provision, as the lands in question are not agricultural lands, but are covered by buildings and other structures and are in fact governed by the provisions of Section 9 and in respect of the properties falling under Section 9, the 1st respondent is not the authority, who has got the jurisdiction to decide the issue. But, however, he has gone into the merits of the matter even with reference to the fact whether the properties fall under Section 9 or not. But, however, he has gone into the merits of the matter even with reference to the fact whether the properties fall under Section 9 or not. Though certain findings were recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which are extracted by the petitioners in their affidavit, but ultimately while considering the claims of the petitioners with reference to each of the survey number, the claim was rejected. Hence, the petitioners have come with the present writ petition contending that the scope of enquiry under Section 10 of the Act, should be confined only to the provisions of sections 4 to 8 and not with reference to section 9. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the 1st respondent is not the competent authority to conduct any enquiry under Section 9 and if any dispute arises under Section 9, it should be dealt with under Section 24 (2) of the Act and not otherwise. As the 1st respondent was not having the jurisdiction to consider the claims under Section 9, he ought not to have gone into the merits of the claims under section 9. It is also contended that the 1st respondent is not empowered to pass any orders vesting any of the lands in the government. According to the learned counsel certain category of properties notified under the Act shall vest automatically in the Government on the notified date itself. Here, the petitioners have made an application for the grant of occupancy certificate. If the petitioners fail to prove the requirements as contemplated under the relevant provisions, their application can be rejected and there is no provision empowering the 1st respondent to pass any orders vesting the properties in question in the Government. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that the said order of vesting in the Government is contrary to his own findings recorded in the very same order and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) DISPUTING the above contentions of the petitioners, a counter has been filed by the 1 st respondent. Insofar as the claims of the petitioners as to the legal heirship is concerned, the respondent did not dispute. It is also not disputed that the enquiry under Section 10 by the 1st respondent is confined only to the claims arising under sections 4 to 8 of the Act. Insofar as the claims of the petitioners as to the legal heirship is concerned, the respondent did not dispute. It is also not disputed that the enquiry under Section 10 by the 1st respondent is confined only to the claims arising under sections 4 to 8 of the Act. It is stated in the counter that in order to prove the claim under Sections 4 to 8, the essential requirement is personal cultivation of the land by the persons, who are claiming to be the occupants and no evidence was produced to prove that there was any personal cultivation of the lands in question. In addition, it was stated in the counter that the major portion of the land in Sy. No. 194/1 to 194/12 was vacant on the date of vesting and there was no agricultural activity taken up by anybody. It was also stated that even the lands were taken over as at the time of the commencement of the Act i. e. , on 20th July, 1955. In the counter, however, it is stated that with reference to the vesting of the buildings under Section 9 (1) and (2), the relevant date is 20th July, 1955, on which date the Act came into force, according to the respondents. Therefore, it was stated that the substantive right of parties under Section 9 has to be decided with reference to that date. It is also stated that except the lands, which are covered by buildings as on 20th July, 1955, in respect of the rest of the lands orders were passed vesting the land in the Government as per the provisions contained under Sections 3 (1) and 3 (2) (b) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent is legal and in accordance with law. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioners did not prove by any cogent evidence regarding the conversion of the land into non-agricultural land as on the date of the Act. Therefore, the claim was not considered under section 9 (2) of the Act. It is reiterated that almost all the lands were found vacant as on the date of the Act but the alleged conversions are not supported by any orders passed by any authority and therefore do not confirm to the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the claim was not considered under section 9 (2) of the Act. It is reiterated that almost all the lands were found vacant as on the date of the Act but the alleged conversions are not supported by any orders passed by any authority and therefore do not confirm to the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Act. Therefore, it is stated that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners. With reference to the contention of the petitioners that there is no provision of appeal against the impugned order, it is stated that under Section 24 of the Act, an appeal lies. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and hence the same is liable to be dismissed even on that ground also. ( 6 ) FROM the above contentions, the issue to be considered is whether the impugned order is not legal and unsustainable? ( 7 ) THE petitioners, who are four in number are some of the applicants before the 1st respondent in two of the applications made before the 1st respondent for the grant of occupancy certificates in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 194/1 to 194/12. It is not in dispute that these petitioners are the legal heirs of the original Inamdar. Now the dispute is only with reference to the merits of the matter. Though there were certain third party applications claiming rights with reference to some of the lands, which were disposed by a common order by the 1st respondent, but, however, those orders are not assailed before this Court in the present writ petition and this writ petition is confined only to the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Case Nos. L/3842/1982 and L/3843/1982. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent, who is an authority under the provisions of the act for the grant of occupancy rights in view of the observations made by the civil court in a partition suit in OS No. 47 of 1965, where it was held that as the lands in question are mam lands, it is only the inams Tribunal, which has to consider the claims. Though the petitioner have made their application under Section 4 of the act before the 1st respondent for enquiry under Section 10, the contentions recorded by the 1st respondent clearly shows that almost all major portion of the land in question is covered by various structures, including the palace etc. ( 8 ) BEFORE going into the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955 received the assent of the President on 16th July, 1955 and was published in the Hyderabad Gazette extraordinary No. 90 on 20th July, 1955. It extends to the whole of the Telangana Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh and shall apply to all imams as defined in Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 2. Section 1 (3) reads as under:-"section 1 (3) (a) This section, Section 2, section 3 except clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section (2), Sections 30 and 34 (both inclusive), Section 35 to the extent to which it enables rules to be made for the purposes of the aforesaid sections, section 36 and Section 37, shall come into force on the date of publication of this Act in the official Gazette; (b) the rest of this Act shall come into force on such date as the Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint in this behalf. "from the above it is clear that only certain of the provisions came into effect immediately after the publication of the act in the Official Gazette, whereas the rest of the provisions shall come into force on such date as the Government may by notification in the official gazette in its domain. ( 9 ) SECTIONS 4 to 8, 9 and 10 have not come into force by virtue of the provisions of Section 1 (3) (a) with immediate effect but they have come into force under section 1 (3) (b) of the Act. This issue has already been decided by this Court that the rest of the provisions came into effect only from 1st November, 1973, Section 3 deals with the abolition and vesting of inams and its consequences which is as under. "3. This issue has already been decided by this Court that the rest of the provisions came into effect only from 1st November, 1973, Section 3 deals with the abolition and vesting of inams and its consequences which is as under. "3. Abolition and vesting of imams and the consequences thereof : (1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any usage, settlement, contract, grant sanad, order or instrument, act, regulation, rules or order having the force of law and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil, revenue or Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all imams, shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State. (2) Save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of this Act and with effect from the date of vesting the following consequences shall ensue, namely: (a) the provisions of the Land Revenue act, 1317-Fasli relating to imams, and the provisions of the Hyderabad atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 and other enactments, rules, regulations and circulars in force in respect of Atiyat grants shall, to the extent they are repugnant, to the provisions of this act, not apply and the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1387 Fasli, relating to unalienated lands for purposes of land revenue, shall apply to the said imams; (b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the Inamdar, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant in respect of the inam land, other than the interests expressly saved by or under provisions of this Act and including those in all communal lands, cultivated and uncultivated lands (whether assessed or not), waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances; (c) all such inam lands shall be liable to payment of land revenue; (d) all rents and land revenue including cesses and Royalties, accruing in respect of such inam lands, on or after the date of vesting, shall be payable to the State and not to the inamdar, and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid; (e) all arrears of revenue: whether as jodi, quit rent or other cess remaining lawfully due on the date of vesting in respect of any such inam shall, after such date, continue to be recoverable from the Inamdar by whom they were payable and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery be realised by deduction thereof from the compensation amount payable to him under this Act; (f) no such inam shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such inam, shall, subject to the provisions of Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cease to be in force; (g) the Inamdar and any other person whose rights have vested in the State under clause (b) shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided for in this Act; (h) the relationship with regard to inam land as between the inamdar and kabiz-e-khadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant shall be extinguished; (i) the Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant, and a non-protected tenant of inam lands and any person holding under them and a holder of an inam, shall as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges and be subject to such conditions as are provided for under this Act and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to any of them in the inam before the date of vesting against the Inamdar shall cease and shall not be enforceable against the government or the Inamdar. (3) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall operate as a bar to the recovery by the Inamdar of any sum which becomes due to him before the date of vesting by virtue of his rights as inamdar and any such sum shall be recoverable by him by any process of law, which, but for this Act, would be available to him. "section 4 deals with registration of Inams as occupants, which is as follows:-"4. Registration of inamdars as occupants : (1) Every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than (a) lands set apart for the village community, grazing lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank bed and irrigation works, stream and rivers; (B) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act; (C) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the Inamdar. which immediately before the date of vesting, were under his personal cultivation and which, together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally are equal to four and a half times the family holding . (2) No Inamdar shall be registered as an occupant of any land under sub-section (1) unless he pays to the government as premium an amount equal to twenty five times the difference between the judi or quit-rent, if any, paid by him and the land revenue payable in respect of such land. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable. (3) The Inamdar shall be entitled to compensation from the Government as provided for under this Act is respect of inam lands in his possession in excess of the time limit specified in sub-section (1) whether cultivated or not. "sections 5 to 8 deals with other kind of occupants, who are entitled for occupancy certificate with which we are not concerned. Section 9 deals with vesting of buildings and inam lands, houses for non-agricultural purpose, which is as under:"9. "sections 5 to 8 deals with other kind of occupants, who are entitled for occupancy certificate with which we are not concerned. Section 9 deals with vesting of buildings and inam lands, houses for non-agricultural purpose, which is as under:"9. Vesting of certain buildings and inam lands used for non-agricultural purposes : (1) Every private building, situated within an inam shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that date. (2) Where an inam land has been converted for any purpose unconnected with agriculture, the holder of such land entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force. (3) The vesting of private buildings or lands under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the payment of non-agricultural assessment that may be imposed by Government from time to time. "section 10 deals with enquiry in certain cases, which reads as under:"7ft Enquiry by Collector in certain cases :the Collector shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which an Inamdar, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant, claims to be registered as an occupant under sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as the case may be, and decide (a) In whose favour, and in respect of which inam lands, the claims should be allowed; (B) The land revenue and the premium payable in respect of such lands. " ( 10 ) A perusal of the above provision of Section 10 clearly shows that the authority under the said Section is empowered to enquire into the claims as occupants under sections 4 to 8 and is not empowered to consider the claims under Section 9. Therefore, the authority contemplated under section 10 has no power to deal with the claims that are falling under Section 9 of the act. Further under Section 24, appeal is provided in respect of an order passed by the authorities under Section 10 to the prescribed authority, whose decision shall be final. The prescribed authority is defined under Section 2 (1) of the Act, which reads as under:" prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act. "sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides for adjudication of any dispute with reference to Section 9 and the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority, whose decision shall be final. The prescribed authority is defined under Section 2 (1) of the Act, which reads as under:" prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act. "sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides for adjudication of any dispute with reference to Section 9 and the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority, whose decision shall be final. The prescribed authority is referred under the Rules made under the act, Rule 18 is relevant, which reads as under:-"75. Authority under Section 24 : (1)For the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 24, the District Collector shall be prescribed authority. 2. For the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 24, the Special Tribunal shall be the prescribed authority"the above rule shows that for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 24, the special Tribunal shall be the prescribed authority. Therefore, it is clear that with reference to the disputes as to whether any building or land falls within the scope of Section 9 has to be decided only by the special Tribunal under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made therein and not by the authority prescribed under section 10. ( 11 ) IF the impugned order is considered in the light of the above legal position, it is no doubt that the petitioners have made an application under Section 4 of the Act for the grant of occupancy certificate. The authority under Section 10, having found that the Petitioners have not satisfied the requirements of Section 4 for the grant of occupancy certificate, ought to have rejected the claim, instead of considering the claim even under Section 9 and ultimately passing an order vesting the property in the government. The authority under Section 10 is not empowered to pass any orders vesting the property in the Government. In fact, the Act itself does not contemplate any such orders, as the Act itself contemplates automatic vesting of certain of the specified lands in the Government. The scope of enquiry under Section 10 is whether the applicants therein have fulfilled the requirements for the grant of relief sought for in their favour. When once the petitioners fail to fulfil the requirements, the consequence is only to negative their claim and there is no need to pass any consequential orders either vesting the land in the Government or any other orders. When once the petitioners fail to fulfil the requirements, the consequence is only to negative their claim and there is no need to pass any consequential orders either vesting the land in the Government or any other orders. ( 12 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the 1 st respondent recorded certain findings showing that the properties in question fall under Section 9 of the Act. The relevant findings of the 1 st Respondent in his order are as under: in para-19 at page 63:-"however, it is further, to add that it is clearly established from the notifications of the Government given from time to time which regard to the taking over possession of the Inam property held by smt. Jahandarunnisa Begum known as lady Vicar and subsequent to the release, it is beyond doubt, that the said extent of land is mostly covered by palaces, buildings, out-houses, houses and vacant area which is not used for agricultural purpose as on the date of vesting i. e. , on 1-11-1973. "in para-21 at page 64: -"from the above, discussions made based on the ground position and utilization of the land, it is abundantly clear that the land in question is claimed by such each and every petitioner is not an agriculture land and it is vacant land being used for non-agriculture purposes before the date of vesting and subsequent to the date of vesting, thereby it can be treated that the land in Sy. No. 194/1 to 194/11 and 12 are not an agriculture land as on 1-11-1973 and all the claims whatsoever filed will fall under Section 9 of the inam Abolition Act. "in para-21 at page 64:-"under the above circumstances, it is fair on the part of Tribunal taking into consideration of the village record, and also various notifications issued by the government much earlier to the date of vesting, the suit lands are never cultivated by any individual claimants. It is beyond any doubt that their suit lands are being used for non-agriculture purpose and also appurtenant areas of buildings, palaces, which are existing on the ground. "in para-26 at page 66: -"undoubtedly this land in Sy. No. 194/11 major portion consisting of these buildings covered and remaining in sy. No. 194/1 are covered by palaces, out houses and appurtenant lands, stables, within the compound wall. "in para-26 at page 66: -"undoubtedly this land in Sy. No. 194/11 major portion consisting of these buildings covered and remaining in sy. No. 194/1 are covered by palaces, out houses and appurtenant lands, stables, within the compound wall. Thus, it is clear these lands are Non-agricultural nature prior to the commencement of abolition of Inams Act, i. e. , 20-7-1955. " ( 13 ) A perusal of the above findings recorded by the 1st Respondent no doubt shows that the disputed lands in Sy. No. 194/ 1 to 194/12 are covered by either structures or they are vacant lands, not used for agricultural purpose and therefore it is a case to be considered under Section 9 and not under Section 4. Having found that the lands are to be considered under Section 9, the 1st respondent ought to have rejected the application instead of going into the merits of the contentions of the petitioners with reference to Section 9, on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove that there are structures as on the date of the Act (wrongly taken into consideration as 20th July, 1955 instead of 1st November, 1973) and decided against the petitioners. The impugned order passed, therefore, is clearly illegal in view of the findings recorded by the 1st respondent itself. It is also clear that the 1st respondent is not empowered to pass any orders vesting the property in the Government. Under the above circumstances, the impugned order clearly suffers from irregularities including want of jurisdiction in passing such orders. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent with a direction to consider the application of the petitioners made under Section 4 only to the extent of claim and not with reference to the contentions made under Section 9 of the act. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are seeking any relief under section 9 of the Act, it is for them to make suitable application or approach the appropriate authority for resolving their claims. ( 15 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed, as indicated. No costs.