JUDGMENT C. Praveen Kumar, J. - Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19087 of 2005, dated 27.01.2011, the District Collector, Chittoor, preferred the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act. 2. The facts, which lead to filing of the Writ Appeal, are as under : i) The Tiruchanur Village in Tirupati Rural Mandal was declared as a minor inam village under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as, 'Inams Abolition Act, 1956'). Pursuant thereto, the lands in the inam village stand vested with the Government, free from encumbrances, except in respect of lands in which the inamdars are entitled for a patta. The Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi, took up suo motu enquiry of regularization of inam lands in Tiruchanur Village, covered under title deed No.464 under the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 and accordingly issued notice under Section 3(1) of the said Act, to find out as to (1) whether the lands are inam lands or ryotwari lands; (2) whether the said lands are located in inam village or ryotwari village and also as to (3) whether the said lands are held by any institution. After due enquiry, an order came to be passed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, declaring the lands as (i)inam lands, (ii) are in an Inam Village, and (iii) are held by an institution. The said decision was published in Chittoor District gazette extraordinary, dated 24.03.1963. In the gazette, the ryoti lands covered under paimoish numbers were not notified as the rights on covered land vest with the government. Further, in pre-abolition records, such as No.2 Adangal, for the Fasli 1361, 1362, 1372, Fair Land Register, Rough Fair Adangal, Correlation Register, the said Paimash No.1115, which was described as poramboke land was noted as 'Kotramangalam Kalva'. ii) After the amendment to A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, Section 2A came to be introduced notifying the communal porambokes. ii) After the amendment to A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, Section 2A came to be introduced notifying the communal porambokes. After completion of Survey and Settlement Operations by the Survey Department, the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor suo motu conducted enquiry under Section 3(1) of the said Act and passed an order under Section 3(3) declaring lands as imams lands located in Tiruchanur Inam Village and that the lands not held by institution and the communal lands was brought under Section 2A of the Act. This decision of Inams Deputy Tahsildar was got published in Chittoor District Gazette Extraordinary No.09, dated 03.09.1984, in which the subject land was notified as 'Kalava Poramboke'. It appears that the gazette notification, wherein the subject lands were notified as "Kalava Poramboke', was never challenged and the same has attained finality. iii) During verification of the records and the inspections conducted by the Task Force it has come to light that the lands which were classified as 'Kalava Poramboke' in Sy.No.378/2, ryotwari pattas were granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar under Section 7 (1) of Inams Abolition Act, treating the lands as inam lands. The enquiry by the task force revealed that the very same Inams Deputy Tahsildar, who rendered decision declaring the land in Sy.No.378/2, an extent of Ac.4.50 cents of land in Tiruchanur Village as 'Kalava Poramboke', took up an enquiry under Section 3(1) of the Inams Abolition Act and declared the land as Inam Dry and the decision under Section 3(3) of the Act was published in Chittoor District Gazette Extraordinary, dated 09.08.1985. iv) The dispute now relates to land in Sy.No.378/2 of Tiruchanur Village admeasuring Ac.6.47 cents which correlates to paimash No.1115. Being satisfied with the documentary evidence filed by the applicants, Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor issued ryotwari patta in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.50 cents in Sy.No.378/2 part, west of Tiruchanur Village under Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. The order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar came to be passed on 26.10.1985. v) On coming to know that the very same Inams Deputy Tahsildar granted patta to one Rangappa, after due enquiry, vide proceedings dated 26.10.1995, the State, represented by the District Collector, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. The order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar came to be passed on 26.10.1985. v) On coming to know that the very same Inams Deputy Tahsildar granted patta to one Rangappa, after due enquiry, vide proceedings dated 26.10.1995, the State, represented by the District Collector, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. By an order dated 29.08.1998, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, set aside the order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar holding the suit land as kalava poramboke. It was held that the land in Sy.No.378/2 of Tiruchanur Village, measuring Ac.6.47 cents, is classified as kalava poramboke and the same is also reflected in SLR (Survey & Land Records). Since the land is a kalava, the same would be a communal land falling under Section 2-A of Inams Abolition Act, 1956. As the possession of land published in the District Gazette on 03.09.1984 attained finality, it was held that the Inam Deputy Tahsildar has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Inams Abolition Act while declaring the said land as an inam land. It was also held that he has no jurisdiction to declare a communal Government land as inam land. For the aforesaid findings, the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar was set aside. 3. Assailing the order of the R.D.O., a revision came to be filed before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration by the applicant. After hearing all concerned and taking into consideration the material available on record, the Commissioner of Appeals vide his order dated 19.01.2000, remanded the matter back to the R.D.O. for obtaining details listed in his own file No.319/94 at page No.115 and dispose of the same as per law. It would be appropriate to extract the finding, which is as under: "Perused the records and considered the arguments of the Learned Counsel carefully. Records reveal that the same points were raised by the R.P. before the R.D.O. The R.D.O's file indicates that R.D.O. gave instructions to the M.R.O. to inspect the land and report whether any 'kalva' is existing on the ground, and if so its starting and ending points and whether the 'kalva' is being used as a supply channel, and its source. He also wanted a report on the physical features of the land and wanted a report with copies of Field Measurement Book and extract of the village Accounts. He also wanted a report on the physical features of the land and wanted a report with copies of Field Measurement Book and extract of the village Accounts. However the file does not contain any follow up action in obtaining these details before the impugned orders were passed on 29.8.1988. On a careful consideration I feel that it is necessary to examine the points mentioned by the R.D.O. to examine the case and accordingly the case is remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for obtaining details listed in his own file No.319/94 at page No.115 and dispose of this case as per law." 4. The matter was again dealt with by R.D.O. vide proceedings number D.Dis.No.615 of 2000. After narrating the facts in issue, the arguments advanced and taking into consideration the observations made by the Commissioner of Appeals, while remanding the matter, allowed the appeal filed by the Collector. 5. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order of Revenue Divisional Officer, which is as under : "In the above scenario I am of the opinion that if the land is ryothi in nature it would not have been classified as kalva Poramboke by the Survey and Settlement authorities. Further the classification has not been contested any point of time. Hence the nomenclature of the suit land cannot be changed and therefore the decision of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar treating the land as inam dry is quite against law and out of his jurisdiction. Therefore the earlier decision rendered by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor declaring the suit land as Kalva and notifying in the District Gazette No.9, Dt,.3-9-84 is confirmed. With the above findings the orders of Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chitoor passed in S.R.No.142/85, Dt.26-10- 1985 is set aside and the appeal filed by the Collector is allowed." 6. The order of the R.D.O. dated 20.10.2003 was challenged before the Commissioner of Appeals on the ground that in spite of earlier direction to consider the report submitted by M.R.O. or the report of inspection of the years 1967-1968, the R.D.O. failed to do so. The order of the R.D.O. dated 20.10.2003 was challenged before the Commissioner of Appeals on the ground that in spite of earlier direction to consider the report submitted by M.R.O. or the report of inspection of the years 1967-1968, the R.D.O. failed to do so. The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, dealt the matter exhaustively and ultimately vide order dated 18.10.2004 allowed the appeal of the applicant, setting aside the decisions of Inam Deputy Tahsildar published in the gazette dated 03.09.1984; orders of the R.D.O., Tirupati dated 20.10.2003 and accordingly confirmed the order dated 26.10.1985 passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, wherein he ordered grant of ryotwari patta to the applicant. The operative portion of the order is as under : "In the above circumstances, I set aside the decision of the Inams Dy. Tahsildar, Chittoor published in District Gazette No.9, Dt.03.09.1984 and the impugned orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi in D.Dis.No.615/2000, Dt.20.10.2003 and confirm the orders passed by the Inams Dy.Tahsildar in S.R.No.142/85, Dt.26-10-1985 wherein he had granted Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner herein in respect of the scheduled land." 7. A perusal of the order of the Commissioner go to show that as against the decision of Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, published in gazette dated 03.09.1984, wherein the subject land was described as kalva poramboke, there is another decision of Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3(3) of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 declaring the said land as inam land, in inam village and not held by an institution, which came to be published in the District gazette dated 09.08.1985, wherein, it was held that Village map does not show existence of "kalava" (canal) in Sy.No.378; the Field Measurement Sketch of Sy.No.378 does not show existence of any kalava and that the land is a barren land without any cultivation, having one round well and two small sheds existing on ground. 8. Challenging the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, W.P.No.19087 of 2005 came to be filed by the District Collector, Chittoor. After hearing all concerned, the High Court found that the issues raised are all pure questions of fact which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when the litigation has been toiling in the courts for more than 25 years. After hearing all concerned, the High Court found that the issues raised are all pure questions of fact which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when the litigation has been toiling in the courts for more than 25 years. In the absence of any legal issue being raised, the Court confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.01.2011, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 9. Sri Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader, attached to the office of the Additional Advocate General, mainly submits that a perusal of the record, more particularly, the decision of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, and the District Gazette dated 03.09.1984 clearly indicate that land admeasuring Ac.6.47 cents in Sy.No.378/2 of the Tiruchanur Village is declared as kalava poramboke and the same stands vested with the Government in view of Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act. He placed on record the original record in support of his plea. He further submits that since earlier decision of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar published in the District Gazette on 03.09.1984 was not challenged, any decision taken by any authority subsequent thereto, without questioning the District Gazette dated 03.09.1984 would be illegal, improper and incorrect. 10. On the other hand, Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that as the respondents are in possession of the land since 1937 and the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, reflects consideration of the matter in detail, the order under challenge requires no interference. He further pleads that since the dispute is only on the factual aspects, which has been dealt with in detail by the appellate authority, it would not be appropriate for this Court to have a re-look into the factual position based on record, which, as observed by the appellate authority, contain number of corrections without any attestation of the same by the person who made such corrections. 11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the land in dispute is an inam land or a kalava poramboke? 12. The original record of Rough Fair Adangal relating to Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural, Chittoor District, is placed before us. 11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the land in dispute is an inam land or a kalava poramboke? 12. The original record of Rough Fair Adangal relating to Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural, Chittoor District, is placed before us. A perusal of the same would show that as against land in Sy.No.378/2, the Paimash number is shown as 1115P describing it as kalava and the extent of land is shown as Ac.6.47 cents. In the remarks column it was stated as Kotramangalam Kalava - Swarnamukhi Nadi. 13. In Adangal No.2 of the year 1951 of Tiruchanur Village, in column No.17, which refers to the remarks of the Village Karanam, land in Sy.No.1114 is shown as Swarnamukhi Nadi and Sy.No.1115 as Kotramangalam Kalava. But it is to be noted here that the extent of land, as shown in Paimash No.1114 is Ac.150.00 cents and as against Paimash No.1115, the extent is shown as Ac.5.00. The Adangal No.2 of Fasli 1361, which is of the year 1951, also shows existence of kalava in Paimash No.1117 in an extent of Ac.4.00 cents. 14. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals dated 18.10.2004 would show that the Revenue Divisional Officer instructed Mandal Revenue Officer to inspect the land and report whether any 'kalva' is existing on the ground, and if so its starting and ending points and whether the 'kalva' is being used as supply channel and its source. The Revenue Divisional Officer also wanted a report on the physical features of the land, copies of Field Measurement Book and extract of Village Accounts. It was held that the file does not contain any follow up action in obtaining these details before the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 29.08.1998. In spite of the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded with the mater and declared the land as inam lands. Therefore, it appears that without collecting the material, as instructed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Mandal Revenue Officer, an order came to be passed setting aside the order of Inams Deputy Tahsildar, treating the suit land as inam land, as void. 15. Therefore, it appears that without collecting the material, as instructed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Mandal Revenue Officer, an order came to be passed setting aside the order of Inams Deputy Tahsildar, treating the suit land as inam land, as void. 15. One other aspect which requires to be noted in the order of the Appellate Authority is that the gazette notification dated 03.09.1984 declaring the suit land as 'Kalva Poramboke' was not challenged at any point of time, but another decision came to be rendered by the very same Inams Deputy Tahsildar, contrary to the earlier gazette notification, declaring the subject land as inam land in Inam Village, which came to be published in District Gazette dated 09.08.1985. 16. The order of the Commissioner of Appeals, at page 95 of the paper book filed along with the Writ Appeal, relate to a correlation statement in D. Dis. 319/94 and lands in Survey No. 114 and 115. It was held that there were some corrections in the correlation but the same were not authenticated by any official. It was further held that original correlation in full is not on record. Hence, the Appellate Authority doubted the decisions taken showing the land as 'Kalva Poramboke" as well as "Inam Land". It would be appropriate to extract the said finding, which is at page 96 of the paper book, as under: "obviously, these corrections led to the issuance of inconsistent and incorrect decisions under Section 3(3) with respect to same S. No. showing it as "Kalva Poramboke" as well as "Inam Land"." 17. The Commissioner of Appeals also refers to a memo dated 17.03.2001 issued by the Deputy Director, Central Survey Office, Hyderabad, referring to a village map published in 1992 by the Central Survey Office, wherein there are no details of "kalva" in Survey No. 378. Taking into consideration the contents and proceedings issued in the year 2001, it was held that the land in Survey No. 378/2 of Tiruchanur Village is a barren land without cultivation and that there is one round well and two small sheds existing on ground with two electric lines passing through land. Taking into consideration the contents and proceedings issued in the year 2001, it was held that the land in Survey No. 378/2 of Tiruchanur Village is a barren land without cultivation and that there is one round well and two small sheds existing on ground with two electric lines passing through land. In view of the above, it was held that the land in Survey No. 378/2 is not "Kalva Poramboke" but "Inam Land" and accordingly the Commissioner of Appeals set-aside the notification dated 03.09.1984 and consequent proceedings treating the said land as 'Inam Land', though, the validity of the gazette notification dated 03.09.1984 was never challenged in any of the proceedings impugned either before the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Commissioner of Appeals or before the High Court. It can also be said that the Commissioner of Appeals referred to certain documents, which were never looked into by the primary authority and the same was made the basis to comment on the over writings in the correlation statement, which was signed by the S.D.T. Chittoor. The change in the physical features of the land could be due to lapse of time and illegal occupation. Therefore, it appears that the appellate authority referred to certain documents which were not before the Revenue Divisional Officer, when the said land was declared as "Kalva Poramboke". 18. As stated earlier, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the issue involves many factual aspects and that the matter is pending since last 25 years. It is no doubt true that some of the issues involved are factual in nature, but it is to be noticed that when the gazette notification issued in the year 1984 was in force, another notification came to be issued in the year 1985 which is totally contrary to the notification issued in the year 1984 and without reference to 1984 gazette notification. Though the gazette notification of the year 1984 was not under challenge before any authority at any point of time, the Appellate Authority in its order dated 18.10.2004 has set-aside the same. Therefore, we are of the view that having regard to the nature of dispute in existence which not only involves disputed factual aspects but also contains issuance of two inconsistent gazette notifications based on factual aspects, the same requires reconsideration. Therefore, we are of the view that having regard to the nature of dispute in existence which not only involves disputed factual aspects but also contains issuance of two inconsistent gazette notifications based on factual aspects, the same requires reconsideration. Hence, we feel that it is a case where the matter requires consideration at length by the Revenue Divisional Office, Tirupathi, afresh by taking into consideration all the material relied upon by the appellate authority; the report of Mandal Revenue Officer and the inspection reports of 1967 - 1968. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Office, Tirupathi, for fresh consideration, keeping in view the documents relied upon by the appellate authority and the legal issues involved, after hearing all concerned, in accordance with the law. Till such time status quo as on today to be maintained in all respects with regard to the property in dispute. No order as to costs. 20. All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are closed.