ORDER This Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 31-12-2005 in Appeal No. F2/21/2005 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar (first respondent), dismissing the appeal filed under Section 24(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, against the order dated 19-11-2002 in file No. K/166/2002 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar (second respondent). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners 2 and 3 herein and the respondents 3 and 4 filed declaration in Form No. 1 prescribe under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 for registering them as occupants of lands bearing survey Nos. 401 in an extent of Ac.2.28 guntas situated at Inmulnarva village under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. On receipt of the said applications, the Primary Tribunal issued notice in Form No. II as required under Rule 6 of the Rules to all the interested persons and got served in the manner provided. The lands in question are classified as Dastagarda Inam and Syed Hussain was the original Inamdar of the lands. The said original Inamdar had 3 daughters viz. Mahaboob Bee, Bismilla Bee and Sharifa Bee. The petitioners 4 to 6 are sons of the first daughter by name Mahaboob Bee, whereas the respondents 3 and 4 are sons of Syed Abdul Khader, who is no other than younger brother of original inamdar. 3. As seen from the impugned order, the original inamdar Syed Hussain died about 40 years back leaving behind him the 3 daughters. After death of said Syed Hussain, his younger brother Abdul Khadir was found to be in possession of the property and after making local enquiry it was established that Abdul Khadir was in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule land for the last 40 years and he had performed marriages of the 3 daughters of the original inamdar and therefore the occupancy right certificate was issued in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 by the Tribunal. The said order was confirmed in the appeal by the first respondent. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 4. The said order was confirmed in the appeal by the first respondent. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the original inamdar, who was a Mulla, died subsequent to passing of the Inams Act, 1954; that, there is no material to show that the respondents 3 and 4 were in possession of the property; that, the revenue records have not been mutated and in the revenue records, name of the original inamdar was reflecting; that, conducting of a discreet enquiry is a valid enquiry under law; that, the respondents 3 and 4 or their father, are nothing to do with the land in question; that, father of the respondents 3 and 4 is not an inamdar nor they are tenants of original inamdar nor they come within the meaning of kabiz-e-kadim; therefore, granting of occupancy right certificate in their favour is totally unsustainable and incorrect. Hence, he prayed to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 contended that, the respondents 3 and 4 come within the meaning of kabiz-e-kadim and the family of respondents 3 and 4 have been vested with the duties of village Mulla and the land was given to their family as inam; that, on the date of vesting of the land, the respondents were in possession and enjoyment of the land and therefore occupancy right certificate has been rightly granted in their favour; that, the orders passed by the appellate authority shall be final and they cannot be revised by this Court and so this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this Revision. Both the counsel placed reliance on several decisions, which will be referred to at appropriate stage. 6. Under Section 24(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to, as 'Inam Abolition Act'), if any question arises whether any building or land falls within the scope of Section 9, the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final. 6. Under Section 24(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to, as 'Inam Abolition Act'), if any question arises whether any building or land falls within the scope of Section 9, the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final. Under Section 28 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, an application for revision shall lie to the High Court from any order passed or proceedings taken by the Collector (except those referred to, in Section 24) or by the Special Tribunal under this Act, on the following grounds that the original or appellate authority-(a) exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) acted illegally or with material irregularity in following the procedure or passing the order. 7. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in S. Narasimha and others v. Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and another wherein it is held thus: "Having regard to the precedential conflict on the question as to the availability of a revisional remedy to this Court under Section 28 of the Act, I consider it appropriate to consider the present revision as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while leaving the resolution of the conflict in G.V. Narasimha Reddy and Patel Eswarappa cases (7th and 8th supra) ( 1988(2) ALT 136 and 1997 (4) ALT 724 ), for an appropriate occasion, by a Division Bench of this Court." Basing on the above decision, the present revision petition has to be considered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact, of an inferior Court of Tribunal, if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion, which the Court or Tribunal has come to, or, in other words, it is a finding which was perverse in law. Except to this limited extent, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact. Except to this limited extent, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact. This Court can interfere when there is arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion or when a finding which is perverse or based on no material is arrived; or patent or flagrant error in procedure. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on a decision in Khimji Vidhu v. Premier High School wherein it is held thus: "Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be sparingly exercised and may be exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like but not to upset pure findings of fact which falls in the domain of Appellate Court only." To test whether the findings of the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are perverse or they are based upon any material on record, or there is a flagrant violation of Rules in conducting the enquiry, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case. 10. The Inams Abolition Act was enacted with an object of abolishing imams in the former Hyderabad State. By virtue of Section 3 of the Act, imams were abolished with effect from the date of commencement of the Act, and all imams shall vest in the State. Section 4 deals with right of inamdar, who is entitled to be an occupant. Section 5 deals with kabiz-e-kadim, who is entitled to be registered as an occupant subject to fulfilling certain conditions. Section 6 deals with registration of permanent tenants as occupants with effect from the date of vesting. Section 7 deals with registration of protected tenants as occupants, and Section 8 deals with non-protected tenant as occupant. The vesting provision under Section 3 of the Act is for the purpose of working out rights of various types of persons as hereinbefore mentioned. The Act was not in force in its entirety in 1955. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 1, only Section 1, Section 2, Section 3 except Clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section (2), Sections 33 to 34, Section 35 to the extent to which it enables rules to be made for the purposes of the aforesaid Section, Section 36 and Section 37, shall come into force on the date of publication of this Act in the Official Gazette i.e. on 20-7-1955. After formation of State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1956, the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, was enacted, repealing the Act, 1955. The said Act was struck down by this Court. Therefore, by necessary implication, it can be said that the Act, 1955 was revived. Thereafter, the Government issued Notification bringing the entire Act into force with effect from 1-11-1973. 11. In the decision in Kodithala Keshavulu v. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyderabad, wherein it is held thus: "... The word, "successor-in-interest is of wide amplitude. It need not be confined only to heirs. An interest can devolve either by succession or by private treaty or by the operation of law. In all these cases, the persons upon whom the interest devolves would be a successor-in-interest. It may be that the position will be different if the alienation is prior to the date of abolition, viz., prior to 20-7-1956. In such a case, it could be legitimately be said that the condition of inalienability has been violated. But, once the imams are abolished and the former inam lands are to be treated as the property of inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim etc., the said condition of inalienability can hardly be insisted upon." From the above decision, it is clear that, the person who succeeds to the interest of an inamdar even after 20-7-1956 including by alienation or transfer from such inamdar, if in occupation and possession of erstwhile inam lands as on 01-1-1973, would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and subject to the conditions mentioned in the Act. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in G. Venkat Ram Reddy and others v. Najeebunnisa and others4 wherein it is held thus: (para 30) "A Division Bench of this Court in B. Ramender Reddy and others v. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and others 1993 (2) An.W.R. 84 (D.B.) held that right to get occupancy rights is not co-related to the vesting of imams in the Government. Therefore, even though al the imams vested in State as on 20th July, 1955, in case the inamdars or various types of persons mentioned in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 were in possession of the land as on 1-11-1973, they would be entitled to get occupancy rights under the Act." 13. Therefore, even though al the imams vested in State as on 20th July, 1955, in case the inamdars or various types of persons mentioned in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 were in possession of the land as on 1-11-1973, they would be entitled to get occupancy rights under the Act." 13. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision in Chama Narasimha Reddy and another v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others5, wherein it is held thus: (para 16) "Inams Abolition Act applies to Telangana area of State of Andhra Pradesh. It is made applicable to all imams as defined in Section 2(1 )(c) of the Act. The Act seeks to abolish all imams besides providing for registration of certain categories of holders as occupants of the land. Inamdars (As defined in Section 2(1)(d), 'inamdar' means a person holding an inam or a share therein, either for his own benefit or in trust and includes the successor in interest of an inamdar, and- (i) where an inamdar is a minor or of unsound mind or an idiot, his lawful guardian; (ii) where an inamdar is a Joint Hindu family, such Joint Hindu family), (Section 4), Kabize-e-khadim (As defined in Section 2(1 )(e), 'kabize-ekhadim' means the holder of inam land, other than an inamdar, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the grant of inam or has been in continuous Rossession of such land for not less than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue), (Section 5), Permanent tenants (As defined in Section 2(1 )(h), 'permanent tenant' means a person who, from a date prior to 10th June, 1950, has been cultivating the inam land on a permanent lease from the inamdar whether under an instrument or an oral agreement), (Section 6), Protected tenants (As defined in Section 2(1)(i) 'protected tenant' means the protected tenant as defined in the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural, Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950), (Section 7) and Non-protected tenants (As defined in Section 2( 1 )(g), 'non-protected tenant' means a tenant other than a permanent tenant or a 'protected tenant'), (Section 8) are five categories of persons, who can be registered as occupants as per Section 10 of Inams Abolition Act. So as to claim ORC, these persons have to prove that as on the date of vesting, such persons are in occupation of the inam land." 14. Therefore, while deciding the issue in question, the Primary Tribunal has to give a finding that the respondents 3 and 4 would fall in anyone of the five categories of holders of land viz. Inamdars, Kalize-Khadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants and non-protected tenants, and further to prove that anyone of the category, they have to show that as on the date of vesting, they were in possession of inam land as on 01-11-1973. 15. The petitioners 2 and 3 and the respondents 3 and 4 herein, filed declaration before the Primary Tribunal for registering them as occupants of the land. There was no finding given by the Tribunal that the Respondents 3 and 4 fall within anyone of the categories as mentioned above. The findings of the Primary Tribunal are solely based upon the discreet enquiry conducted by the Mandai Revenue Officer, Kothur, and basing on the same, it came to the conclusion that the respondents 3 and 4 are in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule land for the last 40 years. It is not the case of the respondents 3 and 4 that they were inamdars or by virtue of succession, they got interest in the property of the original inamdar. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 contended that, the respondents 3 and 4 come within the meaning of Kabiz-e-Kadim, because they have been in possession of the inam land. 'Kabiz-e-Kadim' is defined under clause (e) of Section 2 of the Inams Abolition Act, which means, the holder of inam land, other than an inamdar, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the grant of inam or has been in continuous possession of such land for not less than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in S. Rangaiah and others v. Collector, Medak and others wherein it is held thus: ''The term Kabiz-e-Kadim literally means old occupier. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in S. Rangaiah and others v. Collector, Medak and others wherein it is held thus: ''The term Kabiz-e-Kadim literally means old occupier. The very definition shows such a person to be the holder of the inam, other than the Inamdar, and to have been in possession of the land at the time of the grant of the inam, or 3 person who was in continuous possession of such land for not less than 12 years before the time of vesting and who pays the inamdar nothing except the land revenue. The emphasis in the definition is on holding the land, or possessing the land for more than 12 years before vesting of the land, which would show that what is contemplated is an independent assertion of the right to hold the lands vis-a-vis the Inamdar. Even the second part of the definition stipulating possession for 12 years before the date of vesting would show the concept of perfection of the right against the Inamdar to whom the land revenue is only paid. It is important to notice that the only payment stipulated by the Kabiz-e-Kadim is the land revenue and not the rent in respect of the land. Land revenue has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the Inams Abolition Act as the amount assessed by the Government under the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the Rules thereunder and where no such amount has been assessed; the amount of the land revenue that could be reasonably assessed if the land had been liable to payment of revenue...." 17. There is no material to show that the respondents 3 and 4 were in continuous possession of the land for not less than 12 years before the date of vesting and that they were paying land revenue to the inamdar. Therefore, the respondents 3 and 4 would not come under the definition of Kabiz-e-Kadim. It is not their case that they were the protected tenants, doing personal cultivation. Similarly, it is not their case that they are non-protected tenants as occupants. Therefore, the enquiry conducted by the Primary Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 18. Section 149 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 3117 F., contemplates conducting of a formal enquiry and under Section 153 thereof, prescribes more of conducting ordinary enquiries. Similarly, it is not their case that they are non-protected tenants as occupants. Therefore, the enquiry conducted by the Primary Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 18. Section 149 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 3117 F., contemplates conducting of a formal enquiry and under Section 153 thereof, prescribes more of conducting ordinary enquiries. The relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 3117 F, reads thus: Section 149: Mode of recording evidence in formal inquiry: In a formal inquiry, the office making the inquiry shall in his own hand record evidence in full or cause it to be recorded in his presence and under his personal superintendence that it may be audible to him and sign it. The cases in which the officer making the inquiry is not able to record the evidence in his own hand, he shall in the course of examination, make in his own hand, a memorandum of the substance of the deposition of the witness and after signing it cause it to be put on the file. If such officer is not able to record such memorandum, he shall write the reason of his inability. Section 153: •Mode of ordinary inquiry: An inquiry which this Act does not expressly require to be either formal or summary or an inquiry which a Revenue officer may on any occasion deem necessary it the execution of duties, shall be conducted according to any special or general rules, made under the order of the Government or at the instance of a superior authority and subject to such rules the said officer shall in his discretion adopt such procedure as may be fit for finding out facts and for the public welfare. 19. In the absence of determining the issue whether the respondents 3 and 4 would fall under any of the provisions under Sections 4 to 8, which is sine qua non for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate, this Court is of the opinion that it is a clear case of error of judgment which goes to the root of he case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 20. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 20. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Primary Authority i.e. the second respondent herein, to conduct denovo enquiry as contemplated under Section 149 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 3117 F., and pass orders in accordance with law. 21. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordindly, allowed. No Costs.