Judgment : Common Judgment: (Smt. T. Meena Kumari, J.) 1. 1. Challenging the order dated 03-01-2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing writ petition No. 18559 of 1997, which was filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings initiated under Sections 3 and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and granting pattas in favour of the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam in respect of the land in an extent of Ac 5-98 cents in Sy.No.318 Part of Kallukonda, in Adavivaram village, Visakhapatnam District and further extent of Ac 6.50 cents in Sy.No. 296-A of Budagalametta in Adavivaram village, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction that the petitioner therein alone is entitled for possession and enjoyment of the said land to the exclusion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Devasthanam preferred W.A.No. 416 of 2002 and the Government preferred W.A. No. 554 of 2003. 2. 2. Since these two appeals arise out of a single judgment in the writ petition, and the question involved in these two appeals is common, we dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment. 3. 3. Theappellant in W.A. No. 416 of 2002 is Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Simhachalam, rep. by its Executive Officer, and the respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner and the other respondents are the respondents in the writ petition. For convenient sake, the parties are hereafter referred to with their original status as arrayed in the writ petition. 4. 4. The writ petitioner questioned the action of the 2nd respondent through its impugned proceedings initiated under Sections 3 and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and granting patta in favour of the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Devasthanam’) in respect of the land in an extent of Ac 5-98 cents in Sy.No.318 Part of Kallukonda, in Adavivaram village and further extent of Ac 6.50 cents in Sy.No. 296-A of Budagalametta in Adavivaram village, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction that the petitioner alone is entitled for possession and enjoyment of the said land to the exclusion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. .5. 1 and 2. .5. The case of the writ petitioner was that his forefathers were Archakas of Sri Madhava Swamy Temple, which was an integral part of Vizianagaram Samshtanam. The then Mahararaja of Vizianagaram granted Inam in 1825 for purpose of performing Puja to Lord Madhava Swamy. It was averred that Adavivaram village was constituted after 1904 from part of Madhavadhara village for convenience of survey and settlements and for administrative reasons, but, still it continued to be Inam land in favour of the Archakas and the same was confirmed by the Inam Commissioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Maharaja constituted Devasthanam and gifted certain lands to the Devasthanam and that in 1929 the 2nd respondent-temple instituted O.S. Nos.303 and 308 of 1929 against the ancestors of the petitioner claiming title and possession of the land in the said suit. According to the petitioner, the suit was dismissed on 11-5-1931 holding that the temple had no title and also possession to the suit schedule land and the said judgment has become final. The said disputed land was subjected to partition by the ancestors of the petitioners and in that partition an extent of Ac 5.98 cents in Sy. No. 318 and Ac 6.50 cents in Sy.No. 296-A fell to the share of the petitioner’s father by virtue of a partition deed dated 30.4.1976 and consequent on the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the properties and that they are paying taxes to the 2nd respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the Act, the respondents refused to receive the taxes. When the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 attempted to encroach the land, which was being cultivated by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a complaint with the appropriate authorities and according to him the Adangal shows the possession of the petitioner, the taxes were paid to the 2nd respondent in Vizianagaram Kingdom in 1905 and accordingly the petitioner tried to establish that his ancestors and himself were in possession of the property. The petitioner also filed a W. P. No. 15473 of 1996 seeking a declaration that the temple has no authority to dispossess or interfere with his possession and this Court granted interim stay of dispossession. The petitioner also filed a W. P. No. 15473 of 1996 seeking a declaration that the temple has no authority to dispossess or interfere with his possession and this Court granted interim stay of dispossession. According to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted under Section 7(1) of the Act and on 18.5.1996, an order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing issuance of ryotwari pattas to the temple over an extent of Ac 3302.45 cents. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued to him in the enquiry conducted under Section 3 and also during the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that the entire enquiry proceedings which were initiated under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act were behind his back to the extent of land held by him and the same are not binding on him and it cannot be said to have covered the land mentioned in the order of the M.R.O., dated 18-5-1996. .6. Denying the above averments, a counter has been filed by the Devesthanam. It is stated that the judgment in O.S. Nos. 303 and 308 of 1929 has no relevancy inasmuch as the survey numbers mentioned in the suits are Sy. No.36-A, 37, 38 and 39 and therefore the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the Civil Court decree. It is also stated that a notice has been issued in Form-I by the competent authority while conducting an enquiry under section 3 (3) of the Act where the lands are situated and, some of the cultivating tenants also appeared at the time of hearing and they conceded that the inam lands covered by TD No. 1173 were held by Devasthanam. It is also stated that under Section 3(7) of the Act, every decision arrived at by the Tahsildar is binding on all the persons and institutions claiming interest in such land notwithstanding that such persons are filed any application or adduced any evidence who have participated in the proceedings. The proceedings dated 9-8- .1973 had became final and neither the Government nor any person interested has carried the matter in appeal. The Devasthanam carried the matter in appeal under Section 3(4) of the Act for the extents of poramboke and wastelands. The proceedings dated 9-8- .1973 had became final and neither the Government nor any person interested has carried the matter in appeal. The Devasthanam carried the matter in appeal under Section 3(4) of the Act for the extents of poramboke and wastelands. It is also stated that the order of the Deputy Tahsildar has been set aside by an order dated 31-8-1978 by the Revenue Divisional Officer and remitted the matter back to the Special Deputy Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry with reference to their possession as on 21-6-1975. After the remand, the Mandal Revenue Officer conducted an enquiry in respect of poramboke and wastelands in Adivivaram village and by his order dated 25-5-1989 declared that an extent of Ac 2600-00 cents in Sy.No. 275 part in Adivivaram village and an extent of Ac 725-21 cents in other survey number in the said village are cultivable and cultivated as on crucial date as the properties of the Simhachalam Devasthanam. The said decision had become final. It is also contended that the appeal filed by the Devasthanam to the extent of Ac 2667-20 cents in Sy.No. 275 of Adivivaram village, was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 28.2.1990. The revision was also dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the ground that substantial extents in the same survey number have already been held in favour of the temple. It is also contended that after the disposal of the revision by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land records, the matter was taken up by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 7(1) read with Section 4 of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer by order dated 18-5-1996 issued ryotwari pattas in favour of the Devasthanam for an extent of Ac 3312-45 cents holding that as per the old record the lands mentioned in Annexure-I though classified as communal land, are cultivable as on the crucial date and commercial complex etc. have also come up. The patta proceedings are in respect of the land covered by the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated. 25.5.1989. The Mandal Revenue Officer made another enquiry for grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the lands covered by the proceedings of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) under Section 3(3) of the Act. have also come up. The patta proceedings are in respect of the land covered by the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated. 25.5.1989. The Mandal Revenue Officer made another enquiry for grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the lands covered by the proceedings of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) under Section 3(3) of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, by his order dated 14.8.1996 granted ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac 1026-03 cents in the name of Devasthanam. The Commissioner sought to revise the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer for granting pattas in respect of the lands in Adivivaram village and ultimately by his order 23-10-1997 upheld the pattas granted by the M.R.O through his order dated 14-8-1996 in respect of an extent of Ac 1,036-03 cents, but cancelled the pattas in respect of other lands granted by M.R.O, dated 18-5-1996 for an extent of Ac 3302-45 cents. As against the said order, the Devasthanam filed writ petition in W.P. No. 32800 of 1997 and obtained interim suspension of the same. 5. 7. In the background of the above contentions, the learned single Judge has proceeded to decide the question as to whether the proceedings issued by the competent authority under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act in respect of the lands are tenable under law or not? .8. After considering the entire material on record, the learned single Judge observed that the main case of the writ petitioner rests on the ground that his interest in the land in dispute was the inam land which was granted by Maharaja of Vizianagaram in 1885 to his ancestors to perform Puja to Lord Madhava Swamy. This was part of Samsthanam and his fore fathers are Archakas of the said temple. It is his further contention that the Devasthanam itself, way back in the year 1929, had filed a suit in OS No. 303 and 308 of 1929 against his ancestors which was, after contest, dismissed by judgment dated 11.5.1931 and the said judgment became final. It is also his case that the said lands were subjected to partition between the ancestors of the writ petitioner and by virtue of the partition deed dated 30-04-1976 the disputed land fell to the share of father of the petitioner and from him, the petitioner inherited the said property. It is also his case that the said lands were subjected to partition between the ancestors of the writ petitioner and by virtue of the partition deed dated 30-04-1976 the disputed land fell to the share of father of the petitioner and from him, the petitioner inherited the said property. His contention rests on the ground that the proceedings, which were initiated by the Special Deputy Collector under Section 3 and also under Section 7 of the Act are without notice to his father and himself who are possessors of the land and issuing notice to some of the cultivators cannot be said to be a notice to the petitioner and hence the orders passed by the Authorities under Section 3 and 7 of the Act is not binding on him. 6. 9. Further, a contention is sought to be raised by the Devasthanam that the pattas granted earlier under Section 3 and 7 of the Act were subsequently cancelled in part through the proceedings dated 18.5.1996 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, who held that lands areas already occupied in an extent of Ac 656.70 + 88.22 + 2557.53, which are as claimed in Schedule-III, are the properties of the Simhachalam Devasthanam and the remaining land of Ac 2667.20 in S. No. 275/1A, which is vacant, is declared as vested in Government as per Section 2(A) of the Act, free of all encumbrances. It is also contended that The Mandal Revenue Officer further ordered to issue ryotwari pattas under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act for the extent of Ac 3302.45 cents in Annexure I, II & III of his order. The disputed lands according to both the parties are in Sy.No. 318 and Sy.No. 296-A. The Commissioner of Land Revenue by his order dated 23-10-1997 had suo mottu revised the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer and thereby cancelled the pattas granted by the M.R.O, except for Acs. 1,036.03 cents as mentioned in Annexure I of the M.R.O’s order dated 14.8.1996. 7. 10. 1,036.03 cents as mentioned in Annexure I of the M.R.O’s order dated 14.8.1996. 7. 10. The learned single Judge further observed that a perusal of the orders passed by both the authorities would go to show that no notice has been issued to the petitioner or his father and the learned Single Judge having found that no notice was issued to writ petitioner and also relying upon the law laid down by this Court in SRI ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE, NANDIKOTKUR vs., BADDULA LAKSHMIAH ( AIR 1982 AP 300 ), wherein, in the proceedings for grant of patta, parties interested in the property were not given notice under Section 3 (3) of the Act, it was held that the enquiry was held behind their back and in such circumstances, it was held that the decision arrived at by the Revenue Court cannot bind the parties against whom any such decision had been arrived at, held that the proceedings do not bind the petitioner to the extent of land held by him. .11. It is also heldby the learned single judge that the order passed under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act without putting the notice to the interested persons would not bind on any person emanated under the proceedings. The learned single judge having found that having suffered the decree in the suit .filed by the Devasthanam, the Devasthanam cannot be said that they have no knowledge and they never tried to implead the respondents as parties to the proceedings under Section 3 and also under section 7, and that after going through the material placed by the petitioners that their inam figured in the Gilman and occupation register in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 318/2 (part) and 6(A), held that the proceedings did not bind the petitioner to the extent of the lands held by him. It is also observed by the learned single judge that though the Government was directed to produce the records with reference to the title of the land, yet no records were produced before the court. No. 318/2 (part) and 6(A), held that the proceedings did not bind the petitioner to the extent of the lands held by him. It is also observed by the learned single judge that though the Government was directed to produce the records with reference to the title of the land, yet no records were produced before the court. It is also found that the name of the possessors were found in the Adangals and having accepted that no notice was issued to the petitioner and as the entire proceedings were behind his back, such act of the authorities is violative of the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and also violative of principles of natural justice and therefore the learned single judge allowed the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present appeals are filed. 8. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the order of the learned single Judge. Though some third parties filed WAMP No.1948 of 2004 in W.A.No. 416 of 2002 to permit them to come on record, however, the same is dismissed as not pressed as per the order dated. 6.9.2008. NOTICE 1. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Devasthanam argued that as the Act does not contemplate any notice or personal notice, the contention of petitioners that the authorities ought to have issued a personal notice to them is against the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in Malleswara Swami Vari Temple, Dharmavaram by the Executive Officer vs., Juttiga and others, (1971 (1) An W R 27) to support his contention that in a proceedings under Section 7 of the Act the correctness or otherwise of the order passed under Section 3 of the Act cannot be gone into and as no personal notice is contemplated under the Rules, there is no such requirement and in the absence of such requirement there is no need to issue notice and in view of the subsequent events also the writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be dismissed. Learned counsel further relied on an earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court between SRI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, NANDIKOTKUR, VS., BADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 300 and submitted that no rules have been extracted in the said judgment and that in the absence of any Rules being considered, the facts in the above case have no relevance to the case on hand and in the absence of the rules being considered by the Bench, it is difficult to conclude the nature of the notice to be issued and more so a personal notice. It is further argued by the learned counsel that filing of the suits by Devasthanam and the contentions raised in the said suits are entirely different with that of the writ petition before the learned single Judge and so also the survey numbers are different. 2. 14. In reply thereto the learned counsel for the 1strespondent/ writ petitioner has contended that as Devasthanam itself had filed suits in the year 1929 claiming the lands which were held by the ancestors of the petitioner that was granted by Maharaja of Vizianagaram for performing Puja to Lord Madhavaswamy temple and the properties were inherited by the father of the petitioner by virtue of the partition deed in the year 30-04-1976. It is also contended that since the proceedings conducted by the authorities under Sections 3 and 7 of the I.A. Act were behind the back of the petitioner and is without any notice, the same are void by virtue of the law laid down by this court in Sri Malleswara Swami Vari Temple, v., Juttiga and others.(1971 (1) An W R 27). 3. 15. Inview of the above arguments advanced before us the main issue to be decided is whether a personal notice is necessary for the proceedings under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act? 4. 16. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, the fact remains in this case is that the Devasthanam itself filed civil suits against the ancestors of the petitioner in O.S. No. 303 and 308 of 1929 claiming title and possession over the lands but the same were dismissed by the judgment dated 11-5-1931 holding that the temple has no title and possession to the suit schedule land. The said judgment had become final. The said judgment had become final. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the suit lands fell to the share of his father by virtue of the partition deed dated 30-4-1976 and from whom he inherited the said property and became the owner of the lands by virtue of partition deed dated. 30-4-1976. 5. 17. In order to decide the said question, it is relevant to note Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion Act ,1956 which reads as follows: “3. Determination of inam lands: .(1) As soon as may be, after the commencement of this Act, the Tahsildar may suo motu and share on application enquire and determine; .(i) 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 an 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 document in the possession of the Government and give his decision in writing in regard to items (i), (ii) and (iii) in sub-section (i) and communicate the decision to the persons or institutions concerned. .(4) Any person or institution aggrieved by a decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3), may appeal to the Revenue Court sixty days from the date of communication of the decision 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. .(5) The decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (4), and in case no appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) shall be final. .(5) The decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (4), and in case no appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) shall be final. .(6) Every decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (4) and if no appeal is filed within the period specified in sub-section (4) every decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) shall as soon as possible be published in the District Gazette, and in such other manner as may be prescribed. .(7) Every decision of the Revenue Court, and subject to such decision, every decision of the Tahsildar under this Section, shall be binding on all persons and institution claiming an interest in any such inam land, notwithstanding that such persons or institutions have not filed any application or statement, or adduced any evidence or appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Court, as the case may be.” As per Section 3, the Tahsildar may suo motu or on application, enquire and determine the nature of the land, whether patta land, fallow or inam land and whether the inam land is ryotwari patta and zamindari or inam village, whether such inam land is held by any institution. 1. 18. As per Sub-section (3) of Section. 3 of the Act, it is the duty of Tahsildar to give to the persons or institutions a reasonable opportunity for adducing any evidence in support of their cases, and may also examine any relevant documents in their possession to give his decision in writing. If any person is aggrieved by such decision, the aggrieved person can appeal to the Revenue Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. 2. 19. If any person is aggrieved by such decision, the aggrieved person can appeal to the Revenue Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. 2. 19. It is also relevant to note Section 7 of the Act which reads as follows:- “(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 a ryotwari patta by the Tahsildar under subsection (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 sub-section (1) is entitled to a 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 inamdar 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 sub-section, no tenant or inamdar shall be granted a ryotwari patta under sub-section (1) until the decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (3) of Section 5 or of the Collector under sub-section (5) of that section, as the case may be, is given.” The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Devasthanam is that for conducting an enquiry under section 3, it does not caste any duty on the Tahsildar to serve individual notice upon the persons who claim the interest over the inam lands. In this regard, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Sri Malleswara Swami Vari Temple, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that in a proceeding under Section 7, the correctness or otherwise of the order passed under Section 3 of the Inams Abolition Act, cannot be gone into. It is to be observed that before the Division Bench it was argued that notice was published in the manner prescribed under sub-rules (2) (3) and (4) of Rule3. But the copy of the notice was not served on the petitioners therein and the Division Bench observed at para-10 of the said judgment: “10. Before sub-rule (5) is attracted it has to be shown that the Special Deputy Tahsildar who was making an enquiry under section 3 knew or believed that the petitioners were interested in the lands specified in the notice. The section or the said sub-rule does not caste any duty upon Tahsildar to make any effort to find out as to who are the persons can be said to be interested in the lands specified in the notice. If he by some method or other happens to actually know or he believed that the petitioners were interested in the lands specified in the notice then the sub-rule which is couched in a mandatory and imperative language casts an obligation upon the Tahsildar to issue notice to such person. If he by some method or other happens to actually know or he believed that the petitioners were interested in the lands specified in the notice then the sub-rule which is couched in a mandatory and imperative language casts an obligation upon the Tahsildar to issue notice to such person. If the Tahsildar does not know or believe that the petitioners were interested in the lands specified in the notice it is obvious that it was not obligatory on the part of the Tahsildar to have issued notice to the petitioners.” Relying on the above said decision, the learned counsel for the Devasthanam would contend that the personal notice is not necessary and the enquiry conducted under Sections 3 and the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act do not get vitiate. 1. 20. At this stage, in reply to the above said contention, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner relying on the above said citation would contend that as the Devasthanam itself had filed suits in 1929 against the ancestors of the petitioner, it is incorrect to state that the authorities do not know the possession of the father of the petitioner as well as the petitioner and as such the authorities know that the petitioners were interested in the lands specified and in view of the observation made by the Division Bench that if the Tahsildar by some method or he believed that the petitioner is interested in the lands specified in the notice then the sub-rule which is couched in a mandatory and imperative language casts an obligation upon the Tahsildar to issue notice to such person, and therefore a duty is cast on the authorities to serve a notice on the writ petitioner. He further argued that in the absence of such notice, which the petitioner is entitled to, to participate in the enquiry, it has to be held that the enquiry is behind the back of the petitioner and it is liable to be vitiated, therefore the learned single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition and prays to dismiss the appeal. 2. 21. Inview of the above contentions, it has to be seen that what is the material to show that the authorities making an enquiry under section 3 knew or believed that the petitioner was interested in the inam lands specified in the notice? 2. 21. Inview of the above contentions, it has to be seen that what is the material to show that the authorities making an enquiry under section 3 knew or believed that the petitioner was interested in the inam lands specified in the notice? Admittedly, the Devasthanam itself had filed civil suits against the ancestors of the petitioner, which would indicate that the authorities had knowledge about the interest of the petitioner over the extents of the land in dispute and therefore we are satisfied that there is some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the authorities had knowledge that the petitioner is interested over the land specified and is entitled to a notice. 3. 22. It is also apt to notice that sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwarui) Rules 1957, which reads as follows: “5) A copy of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2) shall also be served on the person or institution if any making an application under sub-section (1) of section 3 and on all other persons known or believed to be interested in the lands specified in the notice.” As observed by the Division Bench, it makes mandatory that the Tahsildar should serve copy of the notice on the persons or institutions if any making application under sub-section (1) of Section 3 and all other persons known or believed to be interested in the lands specified in the notice. At this juncture it is very pertinent to note that the facts of this case go to show that the Devasthanam had already filed a suit way back in the year 1929 in O.S. No.303 and 308 of 1929 against the ancestors of the petitioner and the said suit after contest were dismissed and the said decrees had become final. Further, in the material annexed to the writ petition the petitioner has filed the extracts of Survey and Settlement Register of village of Madhavadharam in the Pedagadi Tahna, Vizianagaram Samsthanam to show that his ancestors claim possession by virtue of the entries in the Pahanis to raise a claim on the disputed land through their ancestors. 1. 23. Further, a Division Bench of this court in SRI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, NANDIKOTKUR, APPELLANT v., ABADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS. 1. 23. Further, a Division Bench of this court in SRI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, NANDIKOTKUR, APPELLANT v., ABADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS. (1982 AP 300) held that where in a proceedings for grant of patta, parties interested in the property were not given the notice contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act and the enquiry was held behind their back, the decision arrived at by the Revenue Court cannot bind the parties against whom any such decision had been arrived at. It also held that that finality contemplated under Section 3(7) of the Act arises only where the decision has been arrived at after giving notice to the parties in accordance with Section 3(3) and not otherwise. The Division Bench further held that where there is nothing to indicate that any such notice of enquiry was given to the parties interested, the enquiry proceedings stand vitiated. 2. 24. As indicated above, sub rule (5) of Rule 3 of A.P. (A.A.) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’)makes it clear that a notice has to be served on the persons or institutions and on all other persons known or believed to be interested in the lands specified and as per sub-rule (6) “the service of notice referred to in sub-rule (5), shall be effected either by delivering or tendering it to the person, and, in the case of an institution, to the trustee, manager, executive officer of other person in charge of the institution, or to his agent, or to any adult member of his family, or, where none of the above courses is practicable, by affixing it at his last known place of residence or by sending it to his last known place of residence by registered post acknowledgment due”. .25. In the case decided by a Division Bench of this Court the effect of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules had not come up for consideration. .25. In the case decided by a Division Bench of this Court the effect of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules had not come up for consideration. Whereas, the other judgments relied upon i.e., Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple,(1982 AP 300) go to show that Section 3 (3) contemplates when an enquiry is held behind the back of the parties interested in the property, when no notice was given to the parties interested in the property, the enquiry stands vitiated and the finality would reach for the .orders Under Section 3 (7) only if the notice has been issued in view of the fact that Section 3 contemplates an enquiry has to be held after giving a notice to the persons or institution concerned, and also examine any relevant documents in possession of the Government and give his decision in writing. .26. The provisions contained in sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules made under the Act mandates service of notice referred to in sub-rule (5) on the persons interested and in this case no material is placed either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court that the authorities have issued any notices to the persons interested in compliance of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the said Rules. The argument of the learned counsel for the Devasthanam that there is no occasion for the Tahsildar to know of the possession of the respondents has no force for the reason that it is the Devasthanam which had filed suits in the year 1929 claiming title and possession of the property and the same were dismissed. Further, it has to be observed that it is the contention of the writ petitioner that he is paying taxes regularly to the authorities concerned and under such circumstances there is every possibility for the Tahsildar to come to know of the possession of the writ petitioner over the disputed lands. Therefore, in the absence of such compliance of mandatory requirement of issuance of notice, it has to be held that no notice has been issued to the writ petitioner and any action by the respondent behind his back is vitiated. Therefore, in the absence of such compliance of mandatory requirement of issuance of notice, it has to be held that no notice has been issued to the writ petitioner and any action by the respondent behind his back is vitiated. Under these circumstances, the learned single Judge rightly held that the petitioner is definitely an interested party in a proceeding under Section 3 of the Act and failure to issue notice to him would vitiate the proceedings as far as the petitioner is concerned to the extent of land held by him and there the entire proceedings are invalid. .IDENTIFICATION OF THE LANDS 3. 27. Nextly, regarding the identification of the lands, though a contention is sought to be raised by the counsel appearing on behalf Devasthanam that the lands referred in the suits and the lands referred to in the writ petition are not one and the same, but however learned counsel for writ petitioner has submitted that the survey numbers which were mentioned in the suits were revised from time to time and the share of land, which fell to the father of the petitioner falls under Sy.No. 318 Part of Kallukonda and Sy.No.296-A of Budagalametta in Adavivaram village. On this aspect, the learned single Judge had dealt with elaborately and observed that even a direction was issued to Government Pleader to produce the records, but the same were not produced. Even the said records were not produced at the time of hearing of these appeals. It was also observed by the Single Judge that the adangals filed by the petitioner that the extents referred therein are correlating with Sy.No.318 part of Kallukonda and Sy.No.296-A of Budagalametta in Adavivaram village, Visakhapatnam, and that the possession mentioned therein is in the hands of the petitioner and therefore concluded that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Further, there is a finding of the Single Judge that the names of the ancestors of the writ petitioners were found place in the column of “occupation” in respect of Sy.No. 318 and 296/A. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Devasthanam inasmuch as survey numbers in the suits were different from the survey numbers in the proceedings under Sections 3 & 7 of the Act cannot be countenanced. MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION: 1. 28. MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION: 1. 28. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that pattas granted in favour of the temple were subsequently set aside by the Commissioner, Land Revenue, and the respondent/writ petitioner cannot have a cause of action against the temple and in view of the subsequent events also the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 2. 29. It is contended on behalf of Devasthanam that the pattas granted to the Devasthanam by the Mandal Revenue Officer in his proceedings dated 18-5-1996 have been, suo motu cancelled by virtue of the proceedings of the Commissioner of land Revenue, dated 20-3-1997 to the extent mentioned in the said order i.e., the pattas were cancelled except for an extent of Ac 1036.03 mentioned in Annexure-I of the order of the M.R.O. Hence, the writ petitioner has no right what-so-ever over the land in his possession, and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that in view of the subsequent events i.e., by virtue of the compromise entered into as between the Government and the Devasthanam, the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 406 dated 20-6-2000 recognizing the possession of Devasthanam in respect of these lands and also some other lands, Devasthanam has accrued rights over the said lands. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by Devasthanam in W.P. No.32800/97 has been allowed in terms of G.O.Ms.No. No.406 by the order dated 28-09-2000. The learned counsel also further argued that the commissioner found that these lands are Poramboke, wastelands and the entire land vests with the Government as per the provisions of Section 2(A) of the Act and as such the writ petition filed by the petitioner itself is not maintainable. 3. 30. The learned counsel also further argued that the commissioner found that these lands are Poramboke, wastelands and the entire land vests with the Government as per the provisions of Section 2(A) of the Act and as such the writ petition filed by the petitioner itself is not maintainable. 3. 30. It has to be observed that the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the subsequent events that the Government after issuing G.O. 406, dated 20-06-2000, wherein the appellant Devasthanam and another party entered into a compromise which is recorded in Writ Petition No. 32800/97 cannot be accepted and it has no force for the reason that the writ petitioner is not a party to the said compromise and it is only a compromise as between the appellant and the Government and such compromise will not affect the rights of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein to claim the benefit of the provisions of Section 3(3) of I.A. Act and the Rules 3 (3), (5) and (7) and therefore the writ petition is maintainable. 4. 31. For the aforementioned discussion, we hold that the impugned order of the learned single judge does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. The writ appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed. 5. 32. Accordingly these writ appeals are dismissed. Each party do bear its own costs.