JUDGMENT : R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. 1. Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri Sriman, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents. 2. The present Writ Appeal relates to the question of grant of patta in relation to lands situated in Chintalapalem Village, Vizianagaram District. 3. The said Chintalapalem Village fell within the ambit of the erstwhile Vizianagaram Zamindari Estate and had been notified as a Mokhasa Village. The Vizianagaram Estate was taken over under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 [for the Short “the Estate Abolition Act, 1948”] on 07.09.1949 along with all the Inamdars and the said takeover had been published in the State Gazette on 02.01.1951. 4. The Ryots in the area as well as the Inamdar who is the ancestor of the respondents 8 & 9 had both sought grant of patta. Initially the Inamdar was granted patta, by an order 03.11.1969, on the basis of title deed No. 1392 relating to the said lands. This order had been kept aside by the Director of Survey and Land Records on the ground that the final survey and determination of the title deeds under the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition of Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 [for the “the Inams Abolition Act, 1956”] were yet to be completed. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam by an order dated 31.03.1975 had concluded that the lands in question were covered by a pre-settlement minor Inams and under title deed No. 1392 of Chintalapalem Village and closed all further inquiry under Section 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. A revision has been filed against this order before the Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad which, by an order dated 06.02.1979 gave a finding that the land in T.D.No. 1392 was in excess of the notified extent and sought localization of the lands after the survey. Similarly, the order of the Settlement Officer dated 24.10.1975 is said to have been set aside in the revision filed by the Inamdar in R.P.No. 597 of 1975. 5. Similarly, the order of the Settlement Officer dated 24.10.1975 is said to have been set aside in the revision filed by the Inamdar in R.P.No. 597 of 1975. 5. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Vizianagaram relying upon the survey dated 10.08.1973 and the draft Gazette notification on 23.03.1957 issued under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Inams Assessment Act, 1955 showing an existence of T.D.No. 1392 of Chintalapalem Village had granted Ryotwari patta to the Inamdar. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram in proceedings bearing Sr.No. 11(a)/429/67/VZM/F2, dated 16.03.2002 dropping further proceedings under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, the Writ Petitioners approached the Commissioner & Director of Settlements, A.P, Hyderabad in R.P.No. 3/2011(A). The said Commissioner & Director of Settlements by an order dated 14.05.2014 had dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the proceedings under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 are not maintainable and it is only the authorities under the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 who would jurisdiction in the matter. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner & Director of Settlement, the respondents 10 to 16 had approached this Court by way of W.P.No. 10141 of 2015. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 05.12.2022, had allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent with a direction to the 1st respondent to give notices to all the concerned parties and pass appropriate orders, after duly conducting an enquiry. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present Writ Appeal under the Letter Patent. 9. Before adverting to the respective contentions, it is necessary to refer to the Judgment, dated 17.04.2014, of a Learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh for the States of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kotha Cheruvu Plantation Industries Private Limited, 2014 SCC Online A.P. 295 the relevant paragraphs 4 to 9 read as follows: 4. The Marquis of Cornwallis, the then Governor General of India initiated what came to be known as permanent settlement. The said term meant settlement in perpetuity of the government demand with the intermediate class of persons such as Zamindars. In 1799, positive orders were sent from England that Lord Cornwallis scheme was to be adopted throughout the Madras Presidency. The Marquis of Cornwallis, the then Governor General of India initiated what came to be known as permanent settlement. The said term meant settlement in perpetuity of the government demand with the intermediate class of persons such as Zamindars. In 1799, positive orders were sent from England that Lord Cornwallis scheme was to be adopted throughout the Madras Presidency. Lord Wellesley, who succeeded him as Governor General directed the commencement of operations on the lands of the East Coast of India. Regulation XXV of 1802 was passed for carrying out the purposes of the permanent settlement. It conferred proprietary right in the soil on the Zamindars. The effect of the permanent settlement was to convert the precarious tenure previously held by Zamindars into a permanent one to give them a right to hold their estates forever on a fixed peishkush payable to the British Government with heritability and transferability. By virtue of the grant by the Government in favour of the Zamindar under the permanent settlement, the latter got a prima facie title to all lands lying within the geographical limits of their Zamindaris. Peishkush is the assessment fixed at the time of the permanent settlement payable by the Zamindar to the government. On the fixing of such assessment, the Zamindar was granted a sanad- i-milkiyat-i-istimrar or deed of permanent property in which the conditions and articles of the tenure are entered, and he is required to execute a corresponding kabuliat. Any dispute regarding assessment is regulated by the Sanad and the kabuliat. The assets or income of the Zamindari were taken into account for the purpose of arriving at the assessment payable to the Government i.e. peshkush. The policy of the East India Company at the time was to take away from Zamindars, the rights which according to modern western notions could only be exercised by the Sovereign power and to leave them only such rights as could be exercised by a private proprietor. Therefore on establishment of permanent settlement, it was made a fundamental condition that Zamindars should no longer be suffered to keep a military force and that preservation of general order and public tranquillity should henceforth be vested solely in government and civil authorities to whom under its control and direction the public safety was vested. KCK BEING A GRANT OF 1786 A.D IS A PRE-SETTLEMENT MINOR INAM HAVING BEEN GRANTED BEFORE 1802 5. KCK BEING A GRANT OF 1786 A.D IS A PRE-SETTLEMENT MINOR INAM HAVING BEEN GRANTED BEFORE 1802 5. It is necessary to refer to the background of grants made by the Zamindars prior to permanent settlement of 1802 and as to how the income therefrom was dealt with at the time of permanent settlement while fixing the peishkush payable by the Zamindar to the Company. There are two categories here as mentioned in paras 7 and 8 below. 6. Grants made before the permanent settlement were called pre settlement inams. KCK is one such pre settlement inam as it had been granted in 1786 A.D. by the Zamindar/Rajah of Srikalahasti prior to 1802. 7. Generally pre settlement grants/inams in Madras Presidency were excluded from the assets of the Zamindari for the purpose of fixing the peishkush or assessment payable by the Zamindar to the government, the jodi payable to him by the ryots being alone included. The Permanent Settlement of 1802 having been made exclusive of alienated lands, pre settlement inams as they are normally called, the Zamindars connection with them ceased then. Section 12 of Regulation XXV of 1802 distinctly stated that it is not competent to a land holder to resume beneficial grants such as lakhiraj lands (lands exempt from the payment of public revenue and of all other lands paying only favourable rents) . The result of this was that such grants were thereafter regarded as held by the grantees under the Government subject to its right of resumption on valid grounds, and they were dealt with on that footing at the time of the subsequent inam settlement when they were enfranchised by the Government relinquishing its right of reversion in lieu of a fixed annual payment called quit rent. In respect of such alienated lands, Inam Commissioner was appointed under Inam Rules, 1859 to examine the history of such cases and grant title deeds and therefore, the title deeds in respect of such lands reflected the right of resumption vested solely with the Government and not with Zamindars. The jodi, however, continued to be payable to the Zamindar as before but it was no longer indicative of the Zamindars ownership and the grantees under tenure of the grant. 8. The jodi, however, continued to be payable to the Zamindar as before but it was no longer indicative of the Zamindars ownership and the grantees under tenure of the grant. 8. But where their full rental including that of the inams has been included in the assets of the Zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement for the purpose of computing peishkush, the Zamindar would be the owner of pre settlement inams also. 9. Inams granted by the Zamindar subsequent to the permanent settlement are known as post settlement or darmilla inams (the term darmilla in Telugu language meaning subsequent i.e., subsequent to Permanent Settlement, 1802). 10. We are in agreement with the aforesaid exposition of the facts and law relating to the permanent settlements of 1802, the status of pre-settlement Inams and the applicability of the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 to such Inams. 11. In the present case, granting Ryotwari patta in relation to pre-settlement Inams would fall outside the purview of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 as the said act is concerned only with the assets of the Zamindars Estates which had been taken over by the Government and the grant of Ryotwari pattas in such cases would be governed by the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. 12. This would mean that if the land in question is to be treated as a pre-settlement Inam, the law governing the grant of Ryotwari patta would be the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 and not the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. 13. In the present case, the Inamdar was claiming the right to be granted a Ryotwari Patta under the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 on the ground that the said land was a pre settlement Inam granted to the ancestors of the Inamdar. The Ryots in the area were claiming that the said lands should not treated as an Inam but should be treated as a land falling within the assets of the Vizianagaram Zamindari Estate and the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 should apply. As can be seen from the aforesaid facts, there was a seesaw battle between the Ryots of the area and the Inamdar as to which Act would be applicable. The matter finally reached the Commissioner & Director of Settlement Officer, A.P, Hyderabad in R.P.No. 3/2011. As can be seen from the aforesaid facts, there was a seesaw battle between the Ryots of the area and the Inamdar as to which Act would be applicable. The matter finally reached the Commissioner & Director of Settlement Officer, A.P, Hyderabad in R.P.No. 3/2011. The Commissioner while passing the orders, in the revision petition, 14.05.2014 refers to the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Kothavalasa, stating that there were 17 enfranchised pre-settlement minor services Inams covered under the title deed No. 1391 to 1400 & title deed No. 1408 to 1414 and un-enfranchised settlement services minor Inams vide the title deeds Nos.7 to 9. 14. The contention of the Ryots of the area, namely the Writ Petitioners was that title deed No. 1392, claimed by the Inamdar was a title deed issued in relation to another Village called Marupally, in the same area and that the person named in the title deed was not the ancestor of the Inamdars. The Ryots also took the contention that no title deeds were issued in relation to Chintalapalem Village and that neither the Inamdar nor the revenue authorities were able to produce a copy of any such title deed. 15. The Commissioner, Settlement took the view that the settlement and survey process could have been conducted by different officers appointed by the then Inam Commissioner, Mr. G.N. Taylor and the title deeds of the same number could have been issued in different Villages and rejected the contention of the Ryots that the existence of the title deed No. 1392 in Marupally Village, would automatically exclude the possibility of a title deed with the same number being issued in Chintalapalem Village. On that basis, the Commissioner of Settlement took the view that only the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 would be applicable and the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 would not be applicable and consequently, the revision filed under the Estate Abolition Act is not maintainable. 16. The writ petitioners, who challenged these findings before the Learned Single Judge, reiterated their contention that the existence of T.D.No. 1392 in Marupally Village would exclude the possibility of such a title deed being available in Chintapalem Village. 16. The writ petitioners, who challenged these findings before the Learned Single Judge, reiterated their contention that the existence of T.D.No. 1392 in Marupally Village would exclude the possibility of such a title deed being available in Chintapalem Village. The learned Single Judge accepted this contention and set aside the order of the Director of Settlement and remanded the matter back to the Director of Settlement to consider the revision under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. 17. The descendants of the Inamdar, who are the appellants in the present appeal have now produced a copy of the title deed No. 1392 which is said to have been issued on 02.01.1864 in relation to Chintalapalem Village. This Court had also directed the learned Government Pleader for Revenue to produce the record available with the revenue authorities. The registers produced by the revenue authorities recorded that title deed No. 1392 had been issued to one Sri Makena Venkata Appala Narasimha Patrudu in relation to land admeasuring Ac.68.40 acres of dry land and Ac.70.80 acres of wet land in Chintapally village. The copy of the title deed produced by the appellants also shows the same extents of land. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Learned Single Judge that there could not have been a title deed bearing No. 1392 in Chintalapalem Village would have to be set aside. Accordingly, , the land in question, as observed by the Commissioner & Director of Settlements, A.P, Hyderabad, in his order dated 14.05.2014, in R.P.No. 3/2011(A), would be governed by the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act and not the Estate Abolition Act. 18. Consequently, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.