ORDER 1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent by consent. By order dated 25-5-1989, the Mandal Revenue Officer held that 2576.57 acres of land, including the land which is the subject-matter of the present dispute, belonged to the appellant Devasthanam. In pursuance of it, the Mandal Revenue Officer also granted a patta to the Devasthanam on 18-5-1996. 2. The first respondent filed Writ Petition No. 18559 of 1997 before the A.P. High Court for a declaration that the proceedings under which the lands in question (5 acres 98 cents in Survey NO.318 Part and 6 acres 50 cents in Survey No. 295-A) in Adavivaram Village were declared to belong to the appellant and grant of patta there for under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 were void and for consequential declaration that he alone is entitled to possession and enjoyment of the said lands to the exclusion of the State and the appellant. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition by order dated 3-1-2002 and quashed the proceedings and the patta registered in favour of the appellant in regard to the disputed lands on the ground that they were made behind the back of the first respondent in violation bf principles of natural justice and therefore, the order registering the patta will not bind the first respondent insofar as the disputed lands are concerned. The said order has been affirmed in an intra-court appeal filed by the appellant. 4. One of the main grievance of the appellant Devasthanam is that if the Court was interfering in the matter on the ground that the first respondent was not heard and consequentially setting aside the order passed in favour of the appellant, then the matter ought to have been remitted back to the authority concerned to hear the parties and decide the matter afresh. 5. We find considerable force in the contention of the appellant. Learned counsel for the first respondent also is not in a position to defend the failure on the part of the High Court to remit the matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer. 5. We find considerable force in the contention of the appellant. Learned counsel for the first respondent also is not in a position to defend the failure on the part of the High Court to remit the matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and modify the order of the High Court to the effect that the matter will now go back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vishakhapatnam in regard to the disputed lands and the Mandal Revenue Officer will consider the claims of both the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law expeditiously. All questions and contentions are left open.