S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE competing claims of the appellants and the contesting private respondents relate to the entitlement to seek Ryotwari pattas under Section 17 of the A. P. Estates abolition Act, 1948 (for short the Act ). According to the appellants, they are entitled to the Ryotwari patta under section 17 (1) (b) of the Act, whereas, according to the contesting private respondents, they are entitled to the ryotwari patta under Section 17 (1) (a) of the act. The Commissioner of Survey, settlements and Land Records, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad, in his letter dated 8-6-1998, which was impugned in the writ petition, recorded a finding that the appellants are not eligible for the patta under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Act for the reasons stated by him in the order. The commissioner also noted that the contesting private respondents have not laid necessary materials and evidence to grant ryotwari patta under Section 17 (1) (a) of the act and so opining, the proceeding relating to the claim of the contesting private respondents has been remanded to the settlement Officer who is the original authority to adjudicate upon the claims of the contesting respondents. The order of the commissioner has been affirmed by the learned single Judge by the order under appeal. ( 2 ) ARGUING for the appellants, the contention of Sri Veerabhadraiah, learned senior Counsel, at the threshold, is that the commissioner, having thought it appropriate and fit to remand the proceedings to the Settlement Officer to consider the claim of the private respondents, was not justified in foreclosing and finally deciding on the claim of the appellants and that the learned Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter, particularly, while reviewing the order of the Commissioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH several contentions, legal and factual, are raised before the learned single Judge, as well as before us touching the merits of the matter, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties for considerable time, we do not think it appropriate to express any opinion touching the merits of the matter because the claim of the private respondents stands remitted to the Settlement Officer for consideration and decision. It is quite often held and reiterated by the Courts that when rival claims are received in respect of the same subject matter, it is appropriate and just for the adjudicatory authorities to club the rival claims and dispose of the same by a common judgment/order. The rationale of this procedure is that such a course/ procedure of adjudication enables the adjudicating authority to appreciate the rival claims of the parties properly in the decision-making and that such procedure also helps the parties to contest the claims of each other by adducing necessary evidence in their possession in the same proceeding. ( 4 ) WE do not find any extraordinary circumstance or situation which could justify the departure from such normal course of adjudication. It cannot be gainsaid that both the appellants as well as the contesting private respondents lay their claims in respect of the same land and, therefore, their claims should be decided after clubbing both the claims and after giving opportunity to both of them and by a common order. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on rival claims of the parties, we allow this Writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge and also set aside the order of the Commissioner of Survey settlements and Land Records, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad in Case No. P5/1182/ 95, dated 8-6-1998 insofar as he rejected the claim of the appellants for Ryotwari patta under Section 17 (l) (b) of the Act. The settlement Officer, the 3rd responden herein, is directed to club the claims of the appellants as well as the contesting privat respondents and consider the same o merits and dispose of the same by common proceeding after giving reasonab opportunity to both sides expeditiously, any rate, within a period of six months fro: the date of receipt of a copy of this order no order as to costs.