JUDGMENT :- (1) THESE two writ petitions are inter-connected. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W. P. No. 16925 of 2008. (2) THE land in Survey Nos. 80 to 82 of Mamidipally Village and Survey Nos. 113 to 115 of Jelpally Village is part of an inam. Smt. Iqbal Unnisa Begum, 3rd respondent herein filed an application before the revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, East division, 1st respondent herein under Section 4 (4) of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act (for short 'the Act') with a prayer to resume the land in her favour and for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs). Through his proceedings, dated 11. 4. 1983, the 1st respondent recognized the right of the 3rd respondent and held that she is entitled to an extent of l/24th share of the lands at Mamidipally Village. As regards the remaining lands, it was mentioned that steps can be taken to grant ORCs in favour of the respondents therein, who are incidentally the petitioners and certain others. Not being satisfied with the l/24th share allotted to her, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga reddy District. When the appeal was pending, Section 4 (4) of the Act was deleted. Taking note of the same, the Joint Collector passed an order dated 11. 8. 1987 observing that the appeal abated. (3) THE 1st respondent took up the proceedings under the Act in relation to the said lands, under the impression that the matter was remanded to him by the Joint collector, through order, dated 11. 8. 1987. He passed an order dated 19. 4. 1989 granting orcs in favour of the petitioners. On the strength of the same, the Tahsildar, 2nd respondent herein made entries in the revenue records. (4) ON coming to know that the entries were made contrary to her interests, the 3rd respondent and others filed an appeal before 1st respondent under Section 5 (5) of the A. P. Record of Rights in Land and pattadar Pass Books Act (for short 'the ror Act'). The appeal was allowed through order, dated 28. 7. (4) ON coming to know that the entries were made contrary to her interests, the 3rd respondent and others filed an appeal before 1st respondent under Section 5 (5) of the A. P. Record of Rights in Land and pattadar Pass Books Act (for short 'the ror Act'). The appeal was allowed through order, dated 28. 7. 2008, on the grounds inter alia that the grant of ORCs in favour of the petitioners is ex parte in nature and the affected parties were not issued notices, before the entries were made. W. P. No. 16925 of 2008 is filed against the order, dated 28. 7. 2008 and WP No. 21119 of 2008 is filed against the order, dated 19. 4. 1989 passed by the 1st respondent himself, but in exercise of power under section 4 of the Act. (5) HEARD Sri Vedula Venkata ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W. P. No. 16925 of 2008 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W. P. No. 21119 of 2008 and the learned Government Pleader for revenue. (6) THE petitioners in one writ petition have figured as contesting respondents in the other writ petition. Arguments have been advanced accordingly. (7) THE proceedings in relation to the land referred to above originated with the order dated 11. 4. 1983 passed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent recognizing her right to the extent of l/24th of the lands in Mamidipally Village. The 3rd respondent herself filed an appeal for the further relief. That appeal however came to be dismissed as abated, on account of change in law, vide orders dated 11. 8. 1987. The 1st respondent proceeded as though the matter was remanded to him once again, by the Joint Collector vide his order, dated 11. 8. 1987. It is relevant to extract the concluding portion of the said order, to verify as to whether there was any direction as to remand, at all. During the trial of the case at the stage of filing the counter the Government have issued instructions vide Memo No. 1826/j1/ 04 Revenue (J) Department dated 20. 8. 1986 that the sub-section (4) of Section (4) of the main Act of 1955 i. e. A. P. (T. A.) Inam abolition Act 1955 has been deleted. During the trial of the case at the stage of filing the counter the Government have issued instructions vide Memo No. 1826/j1/ 04 Revenue (J) Department dated 20. 8. 1986 that the sub-section (4) of Section (4) of the main Act of 1955 i. e. A. P. (T. A.) Inam abolition Act 1955 has been deleted. In view of the Amendment to the A. P. (T. A.)Abolition of Inam Act 1955 deleting of subsection (4) of Section (4) of the Act further proceedings in the matter abate. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (8) FROM this, it becomes evident that except observing that the appeal abated, the joint Collector did not interfere with the order dated 11. 4. 1983, in any manner, much less he has remanded the case. Therefore, there was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings under section 4 of the Act. It is also relevant to mention as to how the 1st respondent has taken up the case. This is a case remanded by the Collector through the reference 2nd cited with a direction in view of the Amendment to the a. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, deleting of subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Act further proceedings in the matter abate. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. From this, it emerges that there was a clear misunderstanding of the purport of the order, dated 11. 8. 1987, passed by the Joint collector, by the 1st respondent. (9) THE petitioners were no doubt granted Occupancy Rights Certificates through order, dated 19. 4. 1989, and if that order was otherwise legal and proper, no exception could have been taken for the making of entries in the revenue records. Once it emerges that the order, dated 19. 4. 1989, is without basis, no entries could have been made on the strength of it. Another infirmity in that order was that respondents 3 to 11 were not at all put on notice before the entries were made. (10) IN the appeal preferred by respondents 3 to 11 under Section 5 of the ror Act, the 1st respondent has committed another error by proclaiming upon the purpose and nature of the orders passed under the Inams Abolition Act. Though the same authority was conferred with the power under both the enactments, he has to maintain the distinction while hearing the proceedings under the respective enactments. Though the same authority was conferred with the power under both the enactments, he has to maintain the distinction while hearing the proceedings under the respective enactments. (11) FROM the above discussion, it emerges that the orders passed by the 1st respondent, be it the one dated 19. 4. 1989 under the Act or the one dated 28. 7. 2008 under Section 5 of the ROR Act, are untenable in law. (12) THE writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the orders, dated 19. 4. 1989 and 28. 7. 2008 are set aside. The result is that the ORCs issued in favour of the petitioners as well as the entries made in their favour would stand set aside. It shall be open to the petitioners to approach the 1st respondent with a fresh application for grant of orcs. As and when such application is made, the 1st respondent shall issue notices to respondents 3 to 11 and pass appropriate orders; and the entries in the revenue records shall be made in accordance with the determination by the 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.