JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri P.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Sri K.Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 and Sri Kuriti Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 and 14. 2. The above Writ Petition was filed questioning the order passed by respondent No.2 in case No.F1/5550/2013, dtd. 25/3/2014, setting aside the order, dtd. 20/9/2000, passed by respondent No.3 in proceedings No.J/1735/2000 and remanding the matter back to respondent No.3 to re-examine the case of the protected tenants. 3. The brief undisputed facts, that are relevant for disposal of the present Writ Petition, are as under:- 4. One Sri Kallem Bal Reddy, was recorded as occupant and protected tenant of the land admeasuring Acs.27.30 gts., and Acs.2.17 gts, situated in Sy.Nos.88 and 257 of Balapur Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners herein made a claim for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short 'ORC') under Sec. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') claiming that the subject land belongs to Sri Kallem Bal Reddy and his two brothers namely Sri Kallem Yella Reddy and Sri Kallem Malla Reddy and Sri Kallem Bal Reddy being the head of the family and eldest son, the subject land was shown in the name of Sri Kallem Bal Reddy in the Revenue records on behalf of the entire family. It is also claimed that the subject land has fallen to the share of Sri Kallem Malla Reddy in the family Settlement that took place in the year 1952. 5. The petitioners herein are claiming to be the grandsons of late Sri Kallem Malla Reddy and the subject property was stated to have been bequeathed to the petitioners herein by the said Sri Kallem Malla Reddy under a Will, dtd. 2/7/1991. It is also the case of the petitioners that in order to avoid any future complications, the petitioners got a Sale Deed executed by the original Inamdar in respect of the subject property under a registered Sale Deed, dtd. 21/9/1970, vide document No.1260/1970. 2/7/1991. It is also the case of the petitioners that in order to avoid any future complications, the petitioners got a Sale Deed executed by the original Inamdar in respect of the subject property under a registered Sale Deed, dtd. 21/9/1970, vide document No.1260/1970. It is further claimed that the petitioners herein have declared the subject property as the land belonging to them under in the declarations that are filed by the petitioners under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act, 1976') and the same was also computed in the holding of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners claiming to have been in possession of the subject land submitted an application, dtd. 17/7/2000, under Sec. 7 of the Act, 1955, in Form-1 claiming to be the protected tenants of the subject land for grant of ORC. The said application submitted by the petitioners was considered by respondent No.3 and an order was passed in proceedings No.J/1735/2000, dtd. 20/9/2000, granting Occupancy Rights in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of the subject land. 6. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000, respondent Nos.5 to 12, who are the legal representatives of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy filed an appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, before respondent No.2 herein on 11/11/2013. The said appeal was entertained by respondent No.2 and the impugned order, dtd. 25/3/2014, was passed setting aside the proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000 and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration after putting all the parties on notice. Aggrieved by the said order, dtd. 25/3/2014, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, was erroneously entertained by respondent No.2 after a lapse of thirteen years without there being any application for condonation of delay. According to learned counsel for the petitioners any appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, is required to be filed within thirty days from the date of an order passed under Sec. 10 of the Act, 1955. But, in the instant case, the appeal was filed after a lapse of thirteen years. According to learned counsel for the petitioners any appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, is required to be filed within thirty days from the date of an order passed under Sec. 10 of the Act, 1955. But, in the instant case, the appeal was filed after a lapse of thirteen years. He also contended that the main criteria for grant of Occupancy Rights is the possession as on the date of vesting of the land i.e., 1/11/1973 and the petitioners have satisfied the said requirement and as such, the petitioners were rightly granted the ORC by respondent No.3. He also contended that respondent Nos.5 to 12 or their predecessor-in-interest have never made any application for grant of ORC till date and as such, they are not entitled to question the Occupancy Rights granted in favour of the petitioners herein. He further contended that the subject land was allotted to the grandfather of the petitioners herein in the family Settlement that took place in the year 1952 and consequently, the petitioners herein have also filed declarations under the Act, 1976, by duly including the subject land in their holding and whereas, respondent Nos.5 to 12 or their predecessor-in-interest though filed declarations under the Act, 1976, have not included the subject land in their holding evidencing that respondent Nos.8 to 12 have no interest in the subject land. He also placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Indroji Annapurna and others v. the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and others, Writ Appeal No.705 of 2007, dt.19/10/2022. and Gosula Ramulu and others v. A.P. Waqf Board and others, (2017) 5 ALD 298 . 8. He also placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Indroji Annapurna and others v. the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and others, Writ Appeal No.705 of 2007, dt.19/10/2022. and Gosula Ramulu and others v. A.P. Waqf Board and others, (2017) 5 ALD 298 . 8. On the other hand, Sri P.Harinath Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, contended that the very Writ Petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioners are having an effective alternative remedy of filing revision under Sec. 91 of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act, 1950') and further contended that the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act, 1963') has no application to the Act, 1955, and also contended that no limitation or adverse possession could be raised against the rights of a protected tenant or his successors and placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Bal Reddy v. Teegala Narayana Reddy and others, Civil Appeal No.7996 of 2016. 9. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8, contended that admittedly Sri Kallem Bal Reddy was the protected tenant, as is evident from the proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000, issued by respondent No.3 and as such, the petitioners therein being the lineal descendants of the said Sri Kallem Bal Reddy are the persons interested in the subject land and as such, they are entitled to be put on notice before grant of Occupancy Rights in favour of the petitioners herein, but no such notice was issued either to the un-official respondents herein or to their predecessor-in-interest at any point of time before issuing proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000, by respondent No.3. He also contended that under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, does not prescribe any period of limitation and the same confers ample discretion on respondent No.2 to entertain an appeal beyond the period of thirty days subject to showing a sufficient cause and no separate application seeking condonation of delay need be made and it is suffice, if the appellants are able to satisfy respondent No.2 on the reasons for availing the remedy of appeal at a belated stage. He also placed reliance on various decisions in the cases of Balaiah v. the District Collector, Hyderabad District, 1983 (1) ALT (NRC) 7, S.Mallesh and others v. Government of A.P., and others, 2010 (2) ALT 712 and Gali Suvarna and others v. Vadla Raghunandan and others, 2011 (4) ALD 763 . Thus, he contended that respondent No.2 rightly considered the grounds raised by respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein including the aspect of the delay and the reasons for such delay etc. were also effectively considered and rightly remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration of the matter on merits after putting all the persons interested on notice. 10. Sri Kuriti Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.13 and 14, has drawn the attention of this Court to the extract of Tenancy Register to show that the said Sri Kallem Bal Reddy was recorded as protected tenant in respect of the subject land and a certificate of protected tenancy was also issued in the name of Sri Kallem Bal Reddy alone and as such, the petitioners herein, who are no way connected to the said Sri Kallem Bal Reddy, are not entitled to make a claim for grant of Occupancy Rights under Sec. 7 of the Act, 1955. He also contended that late Sri Kallem Malla Reddy is nothing to do with the subject land and it is only, Sri Kallem Bal Reddy or his lineal descendants are only entitled to make a claim for grant of Occupancy Rights under Sec. 7 of the Act, 1955 and the petitioners herein, who are distantly related to respondent Nos.5 to 13 taking advantage of the same surname have made a false claim and obtained the ORC behind the back of respondent Nos.5 to 13 herein and respondent Nos.5 to 13 on having come to know about the said Occupancy Rights in the year 2013, immediately have taken steps for filing an appeal before respondent No.2 under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, and the same was rightly entertained by respondent No.2 resulting in passing of the impugned order and as such, no interference is called for. 11. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire material available on record. 12. From the perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3, dtd. 11. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire material available on record. 12. From the perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3, dtd. 20/9/2000, it is apparent that late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy was shown as protected tenant over the subject land. The petitioners herein made a claim for grant of Occupancy Rights under Sec. 7 of the Act, 1955, in the capacity of a protected tenants or successors of a protected tenant. The petitioners herein are not the direct lineal descendants of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy, but they are claiming on the ground of allotment of the subject land in favour of their grandfather by virtue of a family Settlement, dtd. 19/6/1952 and a Will deed, dtd. 2/7/1991, said to have been executed by their grandfather late Sri Kallem Malla Reddy. For establishing their possession on the crucial date of vesting i.e., 1/11/1973, the petitioners claimed to have placed the certified copies of the pahanies for the years 1953-1956, 1957-1958, 1974-1975 and 1995-1996 and a Xerox copy of the tenancy certificate before respondent No.3. Admittedly, the tenancy certificate was issued in the name of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy through whom respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein are claiming interest in the subject property. The crucial date of possession in order to be eligible for grant of Occupancy Rights is 1/11/1973. None of the pahanies produced by the petitioners pertaining to the year 1973 covering the crucial date i.e. 1/11/1973. Once the tenancy certificate is standing in the name of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy and the petitioners herein are not the direct lineal descendants of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy, respondent No.3, in all probabilities, ought have taken steps to put the legal representatives of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy as mandated under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules, 1975'). Whether the family Settlement, dtd. 19/6/1952, and the Will, dtd. 2/7/1991, are the genuine documents or not is a primary thing i.e. ought have been verified by respondent No.3. It is only Xerox copies of the said family Settlement and Will deed are produced before respondent No.3. Whether the family Settlement, dtd. 19/6/1952, and the Will, dtd. 2/7/1991, are the genuine documents or not is a primary thing i.e. ought have been verified by respondent No.3. It is only Xerox copies of the said family Settlement and Will deed are produced before respondent No.3. Therefore, respondent No.3 ought have issued notices to the legal representatives of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy as they are the persons interested in the subject property before considering the claim of the petitioners for grant of Occuapancy Rights. It is a mandatory requirement as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1975. But, in the instant case admittedly no such notice was issued to the persons interested, who are respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein. Further, as is evident from the proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000, there is no document that is placed before respondent No.3 to establish the alleged possession of the petitioners herein over the subject land as on 1/11/1973. But, for the reasons best known, respondent No.3, without recording any finding that the petitioners herein were in possession of the subject land as on 1/11/1973, proceeded to grant Occupancy Rights in favour of the petitioners herein. Respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein are not parties to the said proceedings nor they were put on notice before issuing the said proceedings. Respondent Nos.5 to 13 herein having come to know about the said proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000, filed an appeal on 11/11/2013, raising various grounds and also explaining the reasons for the delay. The relevant paragraph from the said appeal, reads as under:- "As the things stood thus, the respondents recently in the month of September 2013 approached the Tahsildar Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R.District with a request to implement their names in R.O.R. On coming to know about it the appellants filed objection petition dtd. 20/9/2013 not to mutate the names of the respondents. 20/9/2013 not to mutate the names of the respondents. At that time on verification it came t the notice of the appellants that the respondents are claiming mutation on the basis of certain O.R.C. said to have been issued by the R.D.O. As such the appellants approached the office of R.D.O. Ranga Reddy East Division and got verified the records and obtained the certified copies of the O.R.C. issued in favour of the respondents on 5/11/2013 and on that date for the first time the appellants came to know about the grant of O.R.C. in the names of the respondents herein without issuing any notice to the appellants in that regard and without the knowledge of the appellants the alleged O.R.C. was granted in favour of the respondents which is illegal. As such from the date of knowledge the present appeal is filed within limitation." 13. From the above, it is evident that the petitioners herein, for the first time, approached the Tahsildar concerned for mutation of their names in the Revenue records in the year 2013 and the same was objected to by respondent Nos.5 to 13 herein and then only, the petitioners herein came to know about the grant of Occupancy Rights in favour of the petitioners herein. Though, the petitioners herein filed counter affidavit in the said appeal before respondent No.2, this aspect of the matter was not specifically denied though it is contended that the appeal was time barred. Though, Occupancy Rights were granted in favour of the petitioners herein, as early as in the year 2000, it is not understandable as to why the petitioners have not taken steps for mutation of their names in the Revenue records till the year 2013. If the names of respondent Nos.5 to 13 herein or their predecessor-in-title is continued in the Revenue records in respect of the subject land till the year 2013, there is no occasion for respondent Nos.5 to 12 to know about the Occupancy Rights granted in favour of the petitioners herein as admittedly they were not put on notice before issuing the impugned proceedings, dtd. 20/9/2000. 20/9/2000. This aspect of the matter was considered by respondent No.2 in the impugned order while dealing with the aspect of delay and having taken note of the various decisions rendered by this Court and also came to the conclusion that there is no necessity to file a separate application seeking condonation of delay and the relevant portion from the said order, reads as under:- "The above judgments say that appeal can be entertained after period of 30 days as contemplated in the Sec. 24 of the Inams Abolition Act. There is no need to file separate application to condone the delay under Sec. 5, of the Limitation Act and the Limitation Act has no application to the Inams Act. If the reasons are stated in the grounds of appeal it is sufficient to entertain the appeal. In the grounds of appeal in this case, it is clearly stated that the appellants were not parties to the ORC proceedings and that no notice was given to them or to their predecessors and they got knowledge of the ORC only on 5/11/2013 when the respondents applied to the Tahsildar to enter their names mutated in the concerned records." 14. In the case of Balaiah (4 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court, held as under:- "A perusal of Sec. 24 discloses that a wide discretion was given to the authority to entertain the appeal under its discretion. The 30 days time prescribed under Sec. 24 of the said Act is enlarged at the discretion of the appellate authority. Thus it is seen it is a case of discretion inhered in the appellate authority to extend the period of limitation but not excusing the delay for not filing the appeal within time. The appellate authority has misdirected itself in thinking that an application under Sec. S of the Limitation Act is necessary when the test applicable under the said provision has to be applied and issued the order. Further the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act are intended to convert the Inam land into ordinary tenure under the direct control of the State. Under Sec. 3 with effect from the date of vesting, the inam land shall stand abolished and vest in the State. The proceedings under Ss. Further the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act are intended to convert the Inam land into ordinary tenure under the direct control of the State. Under Sec. 3 with effect from the date of vesting, the inam land shall stand abolished and vest in the State. The proceedings under Ss. 6 and 8 are in the nature of public deliberations and the conversion of tenure of inam into ordinary tenure has to take place in the public interest. The ordinary test of sufficient cause would not apply in the case of an aggrieved party showing sufficient cause for every days delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority had applied wholly inadmissible and wrong test and refused to excuse the delay as if the delay has to be excused under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act..." 15. In the case of Gali Suvarna (6 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court, held as under:- "It would be noticed from the above that 30 days period prescribed is not inflexible and it is left to the discretion of the appellate authority to entertain an appeal if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause to extend the time further. This provision is unlike the other provisions generally providing and prescribing limitation for filing of appeals. The entertainment of appeal being clearly at the discretion of the appellate authority subject to satisfaction on extension of time, the strict rigour of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act requiring each and every day's delay to be explained would not be attracted to an appeal under this Act" Yet in another decision in the case of S.Mallesh (5 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court having taken note of the entire legal position standing by then, held as under:- "Sec. 24 in terms enjoins that an appeal may be filed within thirty days from the date of decision, or such further time as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow. There being no textual ambiguity justifying dynamic or a strained construction, an appeal should be filed within thirty days from the date of the decision of the Collector u/Sec. 10, to the prescribed authority, so as to be within the specified time. There being no textual ambiguity justifying dynamic or a strained construction, an appeal should be filed within thirty days from the date of the decision of the Collector u/Sec. 10, to the prescribed authority, so as to be within the specified time. On appropriate construction of the legislative phraseology there appear no warrant to hold that an appeal filed beyond thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Collector by an aggrieved person would be within time. The language of the provision excludes such a construction. It must however be noticed that a discretion is conferred on the appellate authority to consider an appeal filed beyond thirty days, for sufficient cause shown for the delay. Though the reasoning of the appellate (impugned) order in dealing with the objection as to the appeal being time barred is not as clinically precise as may be expected in a judicial order, the exercise of discretion and the satisfaction of the appellate authority is clearly inferable. The appellate authority accepted the contention of the 4th respondent-appellant that the appeal is filed within a month from the date of knowledge of the primary authority's (R3's) order. The contention of Sri Sanghi that the delay could not be condoned without an application in that behalf by the appellant is too technical to merit consideration. The 2nd respondent-the prescribed authority u/Sec. 24(1) of the Inams Abolition Act is a quasi judicial tribunal not strictly governed by the technical rules of Civil Procedure Code and may follow a reasonable procedure so long as such procedure is fair and conduces speed and efficiency in the discharge of the quasi judicial appellate functions. The technical procedure of filing an application for condonation of delay and on such application being filed, recording elaborate reasons for allowing such application is not mandated by the scheme of the Inams Abolition Act nor on general principles applicable to the procedural requirements of a quasi judicial tribunal. Analysis of the relevant facts of this case and of the applicable principles of law has revealed that the petitioners have been ambiguous and inconsistent as regards their status in relation to the schedule lands; initially claiming to be the owners and pattadars; and in the ORC proceedings for the first time claiming to be the inamdars. Analysis of the relevant facts of this case and of the applicable principles of law has revealed that the petitioners have been ambiguous and inconsistent as regards their status in relation to the schedule lands; initially claiming to be the owners and pattadars; and in the ORC proceedings for the first time claiming to be the inamdars. The petitioners have failed to plead any basis whatsoever for the claim in the ORC proceedings, except a speculative assertion to being inamdars; or in support of the underlying assumptive claim that the schedule lands is inam. The Special Court did not record any conclusions that either the schedule lands are inam or the petitioners inamdars; the 3rd respondent primary authority totally the quasi judicial obligation to evaluate and to record conclusions on the jurisdictional facts including from revenue records and also failed to record an independent finding on the question whether the schedule lands are inam as defined and therefore the petitioners inamdars. The analysis of the relevant facts, both by the Special court in L.G.C. No.62 of 89 and by the appellate authority in the impugned proceedings clearly shows that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioners that the schedule lands are inam, as the expression is defined in Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Inams Abolition Act. The entire evidence on record is to the contrary, that the schedule lands are consistently recorded as Government lands, never Inam" 16. In the light of the above decisions and also considering the reasoning given by respondent No.2 in the impugned letter, this Court is thoroughly convinced that respondent No.2 is justified in entertaining an appeal after a lapse of thirteen years and rightly the matter was remanded back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. 17. Coming to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.705 of 2007 relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, no doubt the learned Division Bench taken note of the delay of eight years refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. Coming to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.705 of 2007 relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, no doubt the learned Division Bench taken note of the delay of eight years refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. That is a case where the pattadars of the subject land therein filed an appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, after a lapse of eight years and the locus standi of the appellants therein to file the said appeal was doubtful and the learned Division Bench also taken note of the same. In the said decision, the appellate authority under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, refused to exercise its discretion to entertain the appeal after a period of eight years and the same was refused to be interfered with by the learned Single Judge and then the learned Division Bench concurred with the concurrent findings recorded by the appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge. Whereas, in the instant case, the appellate authority under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955, in its wisdom exercised the discretion to entertain the appeal on merits. The said appeal was also entertained by respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein, who are admittedly the lineal descendants of the protected tenant. The rights of a protected tenant are kept on a higher pedestrial than the rights of anybody else and a full Bench of this Court in the case of Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad, AIR (1988) AP 77 and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thota Sridhar Reddy and others v. Mandala Ramulamma and others, 2021 Law Suit (SC) 599 recognised the rights of a protected tenant and held that no limitation or adverse possession could be raised against the rights of the protected tenant. Admittedly, the subject land was recorded in the name of late Sri Kallem Bal Reddy in the Tenancy Register and respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein are the persons claiming through the said Sri Kallem Bal Reddy. For this reason also, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.705 of 2007, has no application to the case on hand. 18. For this reason also, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.705 of 2007, has no application to the case on hand. 18. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents on the maintainability of the Writ Petition is on the ground of availability of a remedy of revision under Sec. 91 of the Act, 1950, is wholly unsustainable, as the impugned order is the one passed under Sec. 24 of the Act, 1955 and as such, the question of availing the remedy of revision under Sec. 91 of the Act, 1950, does not arise. 19. The another ground raised by Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the ground that respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein having failed to make an application for grant of Occupancy Rights in their favour are not entitled to question the Occupancy Rights granted in favour of the petitioners herein is concerned, in the considered view of this Court the same does not stand to legal scrutiny. In terms of Sec. 7 of the Act, 1955, there is no limitation prescribed for making an application and once the ORC is granted in favour of the petitioners herein, the question of considering the claim of respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein for grant of Occupancy Rights in respect of the very same subject property does not arise unless and until the Occupancy Rights granted in favour of the petitioners herein are questioned and the same was set aside, in accordance with law. Therefore, the rights for which respondent Nos.5 to 12 are otherwise entitled to cannot be denied on this ground. 20. As already noted above, through the impugned order, respondent No.2 remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration on merits and to consider the rival claims made by the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 12 and nothing is decided on merits by respondent No.2. Therefore, there is no serious prejudice that is caused to the petitioners herein by virtue of the impugned order. The petitioners herein instead of going before respondent No.3 and establish their rights as against the claim made by respondent Nos.5 to 12, approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Respondent No.2 in exercise of its discretion entertained the appeal and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3. The petitioners herein instead of going before respondent No.3 and establish their rights as against the claim made by respondent Nos.5 to 12, approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Respondent No.2 in exercise of its discretion entertained the appeal and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3. If the order passed by respondent No.2 is interfered with by this Court, the same would result in reviving the order, dtd. 20/9/2000, passed by respondent No.3. As already discussed above, the said order suffers from various defects and deficiencies especially absence of any finding with regard to possession on the crucial date i.e., 1/11/1973 and also the fact that the said proceedings was issued basing upon the Xerox copies of the so-called family Settlement and Will deed. Surprisingly, the petitioners herein having claimed that the subject land was allotted to them in the family partition, they are also claiming a right through a registered Sale Deed of the year 1970 from the original pattadar. Thus, the claim of the petitioners is basing upon two different streams. Whether the petitioners are claiming through the family Settlement or through the Sale Deed is also a matter that could have been decided by respondent No.3, while passing the order, dtd. 20/9/2000. But, the same is also conspicuously missing in the said order. 21. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Taking into consideration the time consumed in disposal of this Writ Petition before this Court, respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the proceedings on remand pursuant to the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further it is made clear that respondent No.3 shall consider and dispose of the matter on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made either in this order or in the order, dtd. 25/3/2014, passed by respondent No.2. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed. No costs.