JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records and declaring the orders in Appeal Case Inam No.1885/2012/C, dt.22/12/2014, where under the 3rd respondent allowed the said appeal while setting aside the order in A I A C 53/1977/B dt.5/9/1996, to the extent of the land in S.No.20 of Purushothapuram admeasuring Ac.0.88 cents as bad, illegal and contrary to the provisions of The A.P.A.A Inams Abolition Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 and to quash the same..." 2. The case of the petitioner is that after the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act came into force with effect from 14/12/1956, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam who was authorized to conduct enquiry made a Suo moto enquiry under Sec. 5(3) of the Act has declared five villages of Adivivaram, Vepagunta, Venkatapuram, Purushothapuram, Cheemalapalli on different dates in the year 1977 and 1978 under different orders as Inam Lands held by Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, which was published under Sec. 6(a)(ii) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 30/87. The temple and as well as its properties were registered under Sec. 43 of the A.P. Endowments Act, 30/87. 3. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi who is the Primary Authority under the Inams Abolition Act conducted due enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 7(1) of the Inams Abolition Act and granted Ryotwari Pattas in favour of the Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Devasthanam vide A.LA.C.No.55 /77 B, dtd. 5/9/1996 for various extents and survey numbers of Purushothapuram village including the land in S. No.20 to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents out of which Ac.0.25 cents, which has become final. 4. While the matter being so, the 5th respondent had approached the 4th respondent in A.I.P. No.30/2010 under Sec. 7(1) of the Inam Abolition Act for grant of Form-VIII patta in respect of Inam dry land admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents claiming it as Bariki Service Inam said to have covered under T.D. No.488. The primary tribunal and Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, was pleased to adjudicate and finally held against the 5th respondent vide order dtd. 9/12/2010. The primary tribunal and Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, was pleased to adjudicate and finally held against the 5th respondent vide order dtd. 9/12/2010. Aggrieved by which the 5th respondent preferred an appeal under Sec. 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, before the 3rd respondent vide Appeal Case (Inam) No.1885/2012/C and the same was allowed by order dtd. 22/12/2014, while setting aside the Ryotwari Patta granted earlier by the primary tribunal in favour of the petitioner Devasthanam in A.I.A.C. No.55/77 B, dtd. 5/9/1996, to the extent of land claimed by the 5th respondent in S.No.20, admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents and has remanded the matter to the 4th respondent for conducting denovo enquiry to that effect. 5. Challenging which order, the present writ petition is filed on the main ground that the order and patta granted in A.I.A.C.No.53/1977/B dtd. 5/9/1996, in favour of the petitioner/Devasthanam has become final and the 5th respondent instead of challenging the same by way of an appeal as provided under Sec. 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, after a lapse of 14 years has filed a fresh application before the primary authority. Though the primary authority has rejected the same, the appellant authority has allowed the appeal by setting aside the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner/Devasthanam on 5/9/1996 by remanding the matter to the 4th respondent for conducting denovo enquiry to that effect. 6. When the matter came up for hearing on 25/6/2015, this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.24099 of 2015, has passed the following order: " Pending further orders, the impugned order shall remain suspended." 7. Though the counter affidavit is not filed, the 5th respondent, have submitted the written submissions, wherein it is stated that the 5th respondent herein has purchased the aforementioned extent of land from Sri Gurla Bangari under a registered sale deed dtd. 12/2/1986(Document No.540/1986) and that being the successor in the interest of the original land holder of enfranchised Inam, the 5th respondent is entitled to hold the land as its absolute owner. 12/2/1986(Document No.540/1986) and that being the successor in the interest of the original land holder of enfranchised Inam, the 5th respondent is entitled to hold the land as its absolute owner. The primary authority, Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams)Visakhapatnam, had rejected the claim of the Respondent, on the ground that the petitionerS.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam was entitled for the grant of Ryotwari Patta, since the land was supposed to have been covered by Inam Title Deed No.1273 and that the grant had been made in favour of the said temple by the Zamindar of Vizianagaram and that the lands were held by the Institution. 8. The Primary authority, Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Visakhapatnam, had proceeded on the basis that the Inam was granted in favour of the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam, though the records relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issue shows that the land was granted as a Inam in favour of Gurla Chinnigadu. The Primary Authority had taken note of the fact that the Gilman Register (Survey and Settlement Register) noted the name of the Inamdar as Gurla Chinnigadu but not S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam. Further, the Inam-B Register also shows the name of the Inamdar as Gurla Appagadu and the enjoyers names are shown as Gurla Yerraya and others and it also recorded by the primary authority that the land shown as Bariki Service Inam. 9. The 1st contention raised by the respondent is that the nature of grant is a personal grant, in lieu of the services rendered by the said grantee i.e., Gurla Chinnigadu to the Village, in recognition of which, the Zamindar has granted the land, as Inam, a total extent of Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.20 of Purushothampuram Village of Erstwhile Visakhapatnam Taluk and that it is neither a grant given to the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam nor a grant given for services rendered to the said Devasthanam i.e., not a grant burdened with service to the Devasthanam. 10. It is submitted by the 5th respondent that the 3rd respondent's order is tenable one since the Gilman Register of the year 1903, prepared under the supervision of the authorities of the Government of Madras, appointed H.F.W. Gillman ICS officer vide endorsement R.No.413 on 9/2/1900 under the provisions of Madras survey Act, 1897 for conduct of survey in Vizianagaram Estate. It is submitted by the 5th respondent that the 3rd respondent's order is tenable one since the Gilman Register of the year 1903, prepared under the supervision of the authorities of the Government of Madras, appointed H.F.W. Gillman ICS officer vide endorsement R.No.413 on 9/2/1900 under the provisions of Madras survey Act, 1897 for conduct of survey in Vizianagaram Estate. The record clearly shows the name of the Inamdar as Gurla Chinnigadu and not as S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam and it also does not show that the inam is a religious service Inam in the remarks column. Further, the nature of Inam is clearly described as "Bariki Service/Inam", in the Inam-B Register. The counsel for the 5th respondent relies on the definitions in the Glossary of H.H. Wilson, containing revenue terms, published under authority of East India Company, during the year 1855, reads thus: "Barikivadu:- A person employed to watch the standing crops". Similarly the word Barikudu/Bariyavadu/Bariki, is defined therein as under. "The low caste who discharges the lowest menial officers in a village-The Sweeper, or Scavenger, employed also as a Messenger, Watchman, Etc., " 11. It is further stated in the written submissions that such Inams were granted in both Estates and in Ryotwari areas (i.e., villages directly administered by the Government), for the services rendered to the community at large, which are of various different types, such as barbers, carpenters, blacksmiths, washer man, potters and others. BSO-55 specifies that Inams are granted for services rendered to the village community. The same is not exhaustive but it is an inclusive provision and it has given only some examples. One such service rendered, for which Inam was granted by the Zamindar is for "Bariki", which as noted above means a person employed to watch the sanding crop or person discharging menial duties such as Sweeper, Scavenger, also employed as messenger or watchman. As such, "Bariki" service is rendered to the village and community at large and it is not burdened with service to any religious institution and it is also not granted in favour of any religious institution. As such, "Bariki" service is rendered to the village and community at large and it is not burdened with service to any religious institution and it is also not granted in favour of any religious institution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vatticheruvku Village Panchayat V/s. Nori Venkata Ramana Dikshitulu, (1991) SCC-Suppl.2 held that the entries in such records i.e., Survey and Settlement record and Inam Fair register (based on which, Inam-B is prepared) are of great importance to understand the nature of Inam, in the present case, the entries mentioned above clearly show the nature of Inam and the name of the Inamdar and also clearly show that the Inam was not in favour of the temple. As such, it can be concluded that the nature of grant is one granted to the individual for the services rendered to the community or village and not in relation to the S.V. L.N.S. Devasthanam. 12. The 5th respondent further stated that the subject land, in old Sy.No.20 of Purushothapuram Village, was covered Inam title deed No.488 and not Inam title Deed No.1273 as claimed by the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam. This aspect became clear from a reading of the Visakhapatnam District Gazette dtd. 15/5/1957, notifying under Sec. 3(3) of A.P.(AA)Inams (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, certain lands shown in the schedule. The subject matter land is also shown as "Enfranchised Service Inam Bariki and Barber". "Enfranchised Inam"- as per the land tenure in Madras Presidency written by B.R. Chakravarthy, published on 21/9/1927, says the reversionary rights of the Government are surrendered to the Inamdar in consideration of an equal annual quit rent and the inam lands are thus enfranchised and placed in the same position as other descriptions of landed property in regard to their future succession and transmission. So then, on enfranchisement, an inam land becomes ordinary transferable and heritable property free from any of the restrictions to which it was subject prior to such enfranchisement. The person in whose favour the enfranchisement is made, takes it absolutely "persona designata" and another cannot make any claim to it, even though he might have held the office at the time of enfranchisement, and he might have got the inam enfranchised in his favour, had he shown the Government, he had a preferential right or claim in that behalf. 13. 13. The Inam Title Deed Number shown as 488 as against old Sy.No.20, an extent of Ac.0.88 cents. This clearly shows that the land was not granted to the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam and the Title Deed No.1273 relied on by it, has nothing to do with the present extent of the land in Old Sy.No.20 of Purushothampuram Village, which is covered by title deed No. 488. BSO-53 (1907 Edition) states "once the Inams are Enfranchised by the Inam Commissioner, they stand in the same position as Ryotwari Lands in respect of succession, transfer, sub-division, and sale for arrears of Quit-Rent and they may also be accepted as security for any purpose in the same manner as Ryotwari Lands". This provision was referred to by the Privy Council in Musti Venkata Jagannadha Sarma Vs Musti Veerabhadrayya - (Appeal from Madras High Court), reported in The Calcutta Weekly Notes Volume-XXVI, Page-302. The Privy Council had considered a question, whether such lands were impartible (partible means, involving or denoting a system of inheritance in which a deceased person's estate is divided equally among the heirs once a Service Inam Land is enfranchised). It was held that enfranchisement must be given full effect to and that enfranchised inam land is impartible (as it has lost its character as Inam and gets converted into ordinary ryoti land). A reading of the said judgment would show, what the effect of enfranchisement is and would further show that the inamdar gets discharged from the obligation of performing service that was hitherto attached to such holding of inam land. The expression "enfranchise" means, to "set free" and the synonyms of the said word are "emancipate/liberate/free/release/empower". It means that the holder of the land is set free and is released from the obligation of discharging service for which the inam had earlier been granted, resulting in the land becoming normal free hold land. 14. The 5th respondent further referred to the provisions of the Madras Enfranchised Inams Act, 1862 (Madras Act No.IV of 1862), which exempts enfranchised village or other service inams from the condition of performing service and contemplates that inam lands which are enfranchised are placed in the same position as other landed property. 15. 14. The 5th respondent further referred to the provisions of the Madras Enfranchised Inams Act, 1862 (Madras Act No.IV of 1862), which exempts enfranchised village or other service inams from the condition of performing service and contemplates that inam lands which are enfranchised are placed in the same position as other landed property. 15. The Endorsement, dt.10/9/1921 of the Special Assistant Settlement Officer clearly shows that fixing of Quit Rent to the subject land and the Special Assistant Settlement Officer by mentioning the T.D.No.488 and Sy.No.20 of Purushothapuram Village and nature of inam also mentioned as "Bariki inam. 16. It is further submitted that no individual notices to the occupants and persons interested had been issued to them, to put forth their claims in the matter before a decision was taken by the primary authority Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Visakhapatnam. While conducting Sec. -3 enquiry, it is mandatory to issue such notices, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Division Bench), in Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam V/s. S.V. Narasimham & Others, 2009(1)ACD 357 (DB). relied on by the 5th respondent. Even in that case, the Hon'ble High Court was deciding the issue in relation to the lands claimed by the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam. The records do not disclose that the persons interested and occupants of the land had been granted such an individual notices or opportunity. Therefore, the Ryotwari Patta claimed by the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam, based on some other title deed, is not binding on the Respondent and that does not confer any right on the said temple, since the present land claimed by the appellant is covered by the Inam Title Deed No.488 and not covered by Inam Title Deed No.1273 and hence the inclusion of the subject matter land, an extent of Ac. 0.88 cents in old Sy.No.20 of Purushothapuram Village in the Ryotwari Patta dtd.: 6/9/1996, is a mistake. As already noted the subject land is an enfranchised inam in favour of the then Inamdar Gurla Chinnigadu, who is the predecessor-in-title of the respondent herein. 17. The contention of the petitioner S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam is that the property was entered in the temple register maintained under Sec. 38 and 43 of the Endowments Act, does not further its case in any manner. 17. The contention of the petitioner S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam is that the property was entered in the temple register maintained under Sec. 38 and 43 of the Endowments Act, does not further its case in any manner. When the original Inam was not in favour of the temple and when the original inam was also not one granted for rendering services to the temple, the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam cannot take advantage of such self serving entries, particularly in the circumstances of the present case, when the enfranchised Inam relates to services rendered to the community/Village in lieu of which the grant was made to the Inamdar. 18. The contention of the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam that the then MRO, Visakhapatnam granted a Ryotwari Patta dtd. 6/9/1996, in its favour also would not further its case in any manner, in view of the discussions in the above mentioned paragraphs. The further contention that the matter is barred by limitation is untenable as the appeal was filed within time. The other proceedings relied on by the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam, are not binding on the appellant, since individual notices had not been served and such a decision cannot take away statutory rights of the appellant. It can be said that the issue is barred by limitation, by taking advantage of orders passed or claims made without notice and opportunity to aggrieved persons, who are directly concerned with this issue. The further contention of the petitioner that there is no evidence to show that the predecessor in title of the appellant or the Inamdars, who were in occupation of the property is also untenable. The names of the Gurla family is found in the Gilman Register, 1903 and also in the Inam-B Register and the same family has executed registered sale deed in favour of the appellant. 19. The names of the Gurla family is found in the Gilman Register, 1903 and also in the Inam-B Register and the same family has executed registered sale deed in favour of the appellant. 19. Hence, the Respondent herein is the successor-ininterest of the original Inamdar, whose name is shown in the Gilman Register and also Inam-B Register and the Inam is not pertaining to the S.V.L.N.S. Devasthanam and the same is an enfranchised Inam that was originally granted for services rendered to the community/Village by the original Inamdar and the appellant/R-5 in writ petition is entitled to hold the same, in view of the provisions of law governing enfranchised inams i.e., in relation to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents out of the larger extent of Ac.0.88 cents in old Sy.No.20 of Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and the appellate authority RDO Visakhapatnam rightly allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to primary authority for fresh adjudication. 20. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that though the claim of the 5th respondent was restricted only to the of the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in the old S.No.20 of an Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The impugned order would show that the patta granted in favour of the petitioner by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, after conducting Suo moto enquiry as under Sec. 3(3) of the Act and has declared 5 villages Adivivaram, Vepagunta, Venkatapuram, Purushothapuram, Cheemalapalli. But the issue in the present case is only with regard to the extent of Ac.0.25 cents of old S.No 20 of Purushothapuram Village only. 21. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order in A.I.A.C. No.53/1977/B dtd. 5/9/1996, became final which covers the subject land. Without there being any the challenge to the said order within the time as stipulated under the Act, it cannot be challenged after a lapse of more than one decade, hence, the respondent cannot file application for grant of patta. The appeal is filed only against the orders in A.I.P. No.30/2010, dtd. 9/10/2010, but not the orders in A.I.A.C.No.53/1977/B, dtd. 5/9/1996, as such the respondent No.3 cannot set aside the later order and he can only examine whether the order in A.I.P. No.30/2010 is sustainable in law or not with reference to the provisions of Inam Abolition Act. 22. The appeal is filed only against the orders in A.I.P. No.30/2010, dtd. 9/10/2010, but not the orders in A.I.A.C.No.53/1977/B, dtd. 5/9/1996, as such the respondent No.3 cannot set aside the later order and he can only examine whether the order in A.I.P. No.30/2010 is sustainable in law or not with reference to the provisions of Inam Abolition Act. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the appellate authority has failed to see that there is no challenge to the order in A.I.A.C. No.53/1977/B, dtd. 5/9/1996, which is to be filed within 60 days from the date of said order. 23. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority ought to have seen that the order in A.I.A.C. No.53/1977 dtd. 28/1/1978, passed under Sec. has 3(3) of the Inam Abolition Act has became final, holding that an extent of Acs.111.44 cents, covered under T.D. No.1273 in Purushothapuram is held by petitioner/Devasthanam, out of which for an extent of Acs.90.33 cents, ryotwari patta was granted in A.I.A.C.No.53/77/B, dtd. 5/9/1996, which covers the subject land Ac.0.25 cents (Ac.0.88 cents) also in S.No.20 of Purushothapuram. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the primary authority, under Sec. 3(3) of the Inam Abolition Act categorically taken note that whole Purushothapuram is an Inam village held by petitioner Devasthanam covered under T.D. No.1273, as such there are no minor Inams and the question of the 5th respondent claiming rights under T.D.No.488 does not arise, particularly without there being adjudication by the primary authority recognizing the existence and rights under T.D. No.488. there cannot be any adjudication directly under Sec. 7(1) of the Act and the appellate authority committed error in directing primary authority to adjudicate claim under Sec. 7(1). 25. The Court of Primary Tribunal and Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam in AIP No.30/2010, dtd. 9/12/2010, held as under: "In the said circumstances and in view of the Form-VIII Patta as required under the provisions of Sub-sec. (1) and Sec. 7 of the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotwari Act, 1956 already granted in favour of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Varu Devasthanam, Simhachalam by the then MRO, Pendurthi in AIA No.53/77/B, dtd. 5/9/1996, for the scheduled land measuring Ac.0.25 cents in Sy. (1) and Sec. 7 of the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotwari Act, 1956 already granted in favour of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Varu Devasthanam, Simhachalam by the then MRO, Pendurthi in AIA No.53/77/B, dtd. 5/9/1996, for the scheduled land measuring Ac.0.25 cents in Sy. No.20 part of Purusothapuram village in Pendurthi mandal, the request of the claimant for grant of Form-VIII Patta as required under the provisions of Sec. 7(1) of 1.A. Act, 1956 for the said land cannot be considered at this juncture and accordingly, the claim petition filed by the calimants are hereby rejected." 26. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam vide his proceedings in Appeal Case (Inam) No.1885/2012/C, dtd. 22/12/2014 held as under: "In the above circumstance, the orders passed by the MRO, Pendurthi in AIAC No.53/1977/B, dtd. 5/9/1996 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.88 cents only in old Sy. No.20 of Purusothapuram village needs to be modified and in view of the above, I had that the orders passed by the MRO, Pendurthi in Progs. AIAC No.53/1996/B, dtd. 5/9/1996 or the land measuring Ac.0.88 cents only in Sy. No.20 of Purusothapuram village are hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Spl. Dy. Tahsildar (Inams) Visakhapatnam for conducting denovo enquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity to the persons interested over the scheduled property, since the purusothapuram village is a whole inam village and the Spl. Dy. Tahsildar, Inams, Visakhapatnam is primary authority as per the bifurcation orders passed by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam on 7/8/2010." 27. On a perusal of the impugned order dtd. 22/12/2014, it is clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam has carefully examined the matter with reference to the material papers placed before him and on verification of Form-II Final Notification issued by the Collector under Inams Abolition and Assessment Act, 1955 and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram which was published in Visakhapatnam District Gazette Extra-Ordinary dtd. 15/5/1957, the scheduled mentioned property under TD No.488 measuring an extent of Ac.0.88 cents in Old Sy.No.20 of Purusothapuram village is declared as an Enfranchised Service Inams Bariki and the said land stood classified as Inam Dry and an amount of Rs.1.008-0 (One Rupee and eight annas) were fixed as an assessment. 15/5/1957, the scheduled mentioned property under TD No.488 measuring an extent of Ac.0.88 cents in Old Sy.No.20 of Purusothapuram village is declared as an Enfranchised Service Inams Bariki and the said land stood classified as Inam Dry and an amount of Rs.1.008-0 (One Rupee and eight annas) were fixed as an assessment. Further, he has held that as could be seen from the Inam B Register of Purusothapuram village, the land in Sy.No.20 of Purusothapuram village measuring an extent of Ac.0.88 cents stands registered in the name of Gurla Appigadu under TD No.488. 28. But, however, the case of the petitioner is that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi has conducted an enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 7(1) of the Inams Abolition Act and granted Ryotwari Pattas in favour of Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Devasthanam i.e., the petitioner herein vide A.LA.C.No.55/77B, dtd. 5/9/1996 for various extents and survey numbers of Purushothapuram village including the land in S.No.20 to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents out of which Ac.0.25 cents, which has become final. 29. In view of the disputed facts, this Court finds no wrong on the part of the appellate authority who has remitted the matter back to the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Inams, Visakhapatnam for conducting denovo enquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity to the persons interested over the scheduled property i.e., the petitioner temple herein and as well as the respondents herein. 30. In view of the observations made above and in view of the interim suspension of the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 4th respondent to complete the denovo enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 31. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.