JUDGMENT : Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel appears for appellants. Mr. J.C. Francis, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28358 of 2007. 3. Brief facts: Appellant No.1 (B.Raghunatham (Died) per L.Rs.) approached Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) by filing a petition under Section 7 (1) read with Section 10 under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘Act, 1955’) for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) in respect of land admeasuring Acs.14.20 guntas in various survey numbers situated at Patancheru Village. It was further case of the appellant No.1 before the RDO that he got the share of one of his brothers, namely, B.Venkata Ratnam, on payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of an undertaking. The RDO issued final patta certificate under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, (for short, ‘Rules’), i.e., granted ORCs., vide order dated 13.09.1994 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.14.20 guntas. 3.1 The unofficial respondents (legal heirs of B.Venkata Ratnam) challenged the order of RDO by filing an appeal under Section 24 (a) of the Act, 1955 before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector by order, dated 29.04.2005, cancelled the ORCs issued in favour of appellant No.1 to the extent of Acs.7.10 guntas. Assailing the said order, appellant No.1 filed W.P.No.11879 of 2005. The learned Single Judge by order, dated 19.07.2005, set aside the order(s) of the Joint Collector and RDO and remanded the matter to the primary authority i.e., RDO to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties afresh after affording an opportunity to both the parties. 3.2 RDO by order, dated 17.02.2007, accepted the plea advanced by appellant No.1 and rejected the plea of unofficial respondents. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant No.1 before the RDO that Venkata Kistaiah had no sons and therefore Venkata Kistaiah adopted the appellant No.1 and thereby he became entitled to tenancy rights of Venkata Kistaiah to an extent of Acs.7.10 guntas. Unofficial respondents filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector by order, dated 10.12.2007, granted ORCs, to an extent of Acs.7.10 guntas. The order of the Joint Collector is challenged in W.P.No.28358 of 2007. Unofficial respondents filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector by order, dated 10.12.2007, granted ORCs, to an extent of Acs.7.10 guntas. The order of the Joint Collector is challenged in W.P.No.28358 of 2007. Learned Single Judge by order, dated 01.04.2013, upheld the order of the Joint Collector and set aside the order of the RDO, dated 17.02.2007. It is the order of the learned Single Judge which is under challenge in the writ appeal. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants that appellant No.1’s father Venkata Kistaiah was a protected tenant and had no issues and therefore adopted appellant and provided education and performed the marriage. It is further submitted that the Joint Collector without notice to appellants had set aside the order of primary authority. 4.1 It is submitted that the appellant(s) were forced to take the plea of adoption and the plea of adoption advanced before the revenue authorities after the remand can at best be a mutually inconsistent plea, but not a destructive plea. It is also submitted that appellants claim was never for entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.29.03 guntas and appellant consistently claimed the relief for Acs.14.20 guntas even after remand. It is urged that no adjudication was made in respect of the initial ground/plea i.e., claim of Acs.7.10 guntas on the basis of undertaking on payment of Rs.1.50,000/- by appellant (sale and purchase). It is further submitted that appellants have option to choose or elect any of the plea as the relief sought is the same (i.e., ORCs for Acs.14.20 guntas), and that the plea of adoption is an election in response to the stand of the unofficial respondents. It is pointed out that the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is only a species of estoppel. It is lastly submitted that the appellant No.1 is entitled to take the plea of adoption as the relief sought is same. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the following judgments: 1. Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Walf vs. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Private Limited and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1378 2. Ganesh Prasad vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256 3. Bhau Ram vs. Baij Nath Singh and Others, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 292 : AIR 1961 SC 1327 . 6. Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Walf vs. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Private Limited and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1378 2. Ganesh Prasad vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256 3. Bhau Ram vs. Baij Nath Singh and Others, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 292 : AIR 1961 SC 1327 . 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents adverting to ground No.6 raised in the writ appeal submitted that no serious challenge is made to the order of the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that appellants cannot urge facts which have been conceded. It is also submitted that inconsistent pleas have been canvassed one in each round of litigation and the plea of adoption is a new plea which has been raised for the first time. This plea of adoption was not raised in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge in the earlier round. It is pointed out that question of adoption and its validity is to be decided by competent Civil Court, but not by the revenue authority. It is urged that the appellants submission that the option to elect the plea of adoption, an inconsistent plea, is not tenable. 7. The Joint Collector in his order in case No.F3/2514/2003-F3/9/Inam-2003, dated 29.04.2005 (first round) held that Mr. Venkata Kistaiah was protected tenant in an extent of land admeasuring Ac.29.03 guntas comprising Sy.Nos.196 to 204, 206, 207 and 209 to 211 situated at Patancheru Village and Mandal and that he died in 1963 leaving behind four sons Lakshminarayana, Raghunatham, Ananta Krishna and Venkataratnam, the original inamdar was late Balveer Prasad and this fact is not disputed. The Joint Collector in his order dated 29.04.2005, recorded that the name of Venkata Kistaiah was recorded as Kowldar in the Khasra Pahani (Khasra Pahani is the basic record of rights prepared by the Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-55). It is further observed in the order that names of Raghunadham, Nararayana and Venkatratnam were found recorded in the pahanies for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and in the pahanies for the years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the names of Raghunadham, Nararayana Venkatratnam and Kishan were shown as Occupants. It is further observed in the order that names of Raghunadham, Nararayana and Venkatratnam were found recorded in the pahanies for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and in the pahanies for the years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the names of Raghunadham, Nararayana Venkatratnam and Kishan were shown as Occupants. It is further recorded that basing on the deposition executed on Rs.10/- stamp paper by B.Venkatratnam, S/o Venkata Kistaiah, due to some difficulties, B.Venkatratnam has given the land which falls to his share to his brother B.Raghunatham (appellant No.1 herein), ORC was issued to appellant No.1 herein to an extent of Acs.14.20 guntas i.e., two (2) shares. The Joint Collector observed that rights of a protected tenant shall be heritable and the legitimate lineal descendents by blood or adoption shall be deemed to be heirs, as per section 40 A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Tenancy Act’). That the property which was succeeded by father of unofficial respondents from his father was transferred in favour of his brother (appellant No.1) without the knowledge of unofficial respondents and without a No Objection from unofficial respondents as they are lineal descendents of late Venkata Kistaiah. 8. This order of the Joint Collector was challenged in W.P.No.11879 of 2005. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 19.07.2005 with the following observations: “Without going into the matter further, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Joint Collector as well as the order of Revenue Divisional Officer and remand the matter to the Primary Authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties a fresh, after affording due opportunity to both parties and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 9. RDO on remand on a petition filed by the unofficial respondents vide order, dated 17.02.2007, directed issuance of ORC in favour of appellant No.1 (died per L.Rs.) by holding that appellant No.1 was adopted son of late Venkata Kistaiah in respect of inam land admeasuring Acs.7.10 guntas situated at Patancheru Village and Mandal. An appeal was preferred by the unofficial respondents against the order of RDO. An appeal was preferred by the unofficial respondents against the order of RDO. The Joint Collector in his proceedings, dated 10.12.2007, set aside the order of RDO and held that unofficial respondents were entitled for ORC for an extent of Acs.7.10 guntas being the legal heirs of Venkatratnam and directed the RDO to issue ORCs. 10. The order of the Joint Collector, dated 10.12.2007, was challenged in Writ Petition No.28358 of 2007. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition vide order, dated 01.04.2013, held as follows: “After the remand, deceased 1st petitioner B.Raghunadham took a totally different plea. He abandoned the plea advanced by him regarding the execution of an undertaking by the father of the respondents 3 to 5 on receipt of Rs.1.50,000/-. He projected the plea of adoption. According to him, B.Venkata Kistaiah, the protected tenant, adopted him in the year 1950 and thereby he succeeded to the properties of B.Venkata Kistaiah, being a lineal descendents as provided under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950. What is apparent is that deceased 1st petitioner B.Raghunadham had given a go-bye to the earlier version of execution of undertaking by the father of the respondents 3 to 5 after receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- and projected a new plea of adoption. Whether such a plea can be permitted to put forth by deceased 1st petitioner B.Raghunadham before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy-2nd respondent?. In my considered view, deceased 1st petitioner B.Raghunadham is estopped from taking the plea of adoption on remand. He approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy-2nd respondent in the year 1994 pleading that the entire extent of Ac.29.03 guntas got divided among his brothers and each of them got Ac.7.10 guntas and that he got the share of his brother B.Venkata Ratnam under an undertaking by paying Rs.1,50,000/- to him. Deceased 1st petitioner B.Raghunadham cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions with regard to his claim over the land admeasuring Ac.7.10 guntas. The Joint Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy-1st respondent has taken into consideration the material brought on record in right perspective and more particularly, the inconsistent plea advanced by deceased 1st petitioner B.Raghunadham, and proceeded to set aside the order, dated 17.02.2007, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy 2nd respondent. The Joint Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy-1st respondent has taken into consideration the material brought on record in right perspective and more particularly, the inconsistent plea advanced by deceased 1st petitioner B.Raghunadham, and proceeded to set aside the order, dated 17.02.2007, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy 2nd respondent. I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the writ petition warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” Learned Single Judge in his order has taken note of the Apex Court Judgment in State of U.P. v. Buland Sugar Co., AIR 1979 SC 1104 , wherein it was held that the party cannot be permitted to raise new plea after remand of the matter for fresh enquiry. 11. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 12. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, which reads as under: “(1) All rights of a protected tenant shall be heritable. (2) If a protected tenant dies, his heir or heirs shall be entitled to hold the tenancy on the same terms and conditions on which such protected tenant was holding the land at the time of his death [and such heirs may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, sub-divide interse according to their shares the land comprised in the tenancy to which they have succeeded.] (3) If a protected tenant dies without leaving any heirs, all his rights shall be extinguished. Explanation:- The following persons only shall be deemed to be the heirs of a protected tenant for the purposes of this section:- (a) his legitimate lineal descendants by blood or adoption; (b) in the absence of any such descendants, his widow for so long as she does not remarry. [(4) The interest of a protected tenant in the land held by him as a protected tenant shall form sixty per cent of the market value of all the interests in the land and that of the landholder and of persons claiming under him shall be limited to the remaining forty per cent.]” 13. [(4) The interest of a protected tenant in the land held by him as a protected tenant shall form sixty per cent of the market value of all the interests in the land and that of the landholder and of persons claiming under him shall be limited to the remaining forty per cent.]” 13. The essential requisitions of valid adoption were considered in Madhusudan v. Narayan Bai, AIR 1983 SC 114 wherein the Apex Court held as under: "For a valid adoption, the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite, a ceremony imperative in all adoptions, whatever the caste and this requisite is satisfied in its essence only by the actual delivery and acceptance of the boy, even though there exists an expression of consent or an executed deed of adoption. In Lakshman Singh v. Smt. Rupkanwar, AIR 1961 SC 1378 , this Court briefly stated the law thus: "Under the Hindu Law, whether among the regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have formal ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law requires that, the natural parent shall handover the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of it." In some cases, to complete the adoption a "datta homam" has been considered necessary, but in the case of the twice-born classes no such ceremony is needed if the adopted boy belongs to the same gotra as the adoptive father. In the present case, the appellant has pleaded the custom of his community that the act of giving and taking suffices to effect a valid adoption, and nothing has been shown to us to indicate that the further ceremony of "datta homam" was necessary." 14. In the present case, the appellant has pleaded the custom of his community that the act of giving and taking suffices to effect a valid adoption, and nothing has been shown to us to indicate that the further ceremony of "datta homam" was necessary." 14. Further, the Supreme Court in Kishori Lal v. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504 , held as under: "As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicions of fraud and so consistent and probable is to leave no occasion for doubting its truth." 15. By virtue of Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, the lineal descendants of Venkataratnam cannot be denied their heritable rights. The question of adoption and its validity can be examined by Civil Court and not revenue court. The appellant No.1 claiming ORCs for an extent of Acs. 7.10 guntas, on the plea of being an adopted son has to establish the factum of valid adoption in a competent Court. To establish the factum of valid adoption, the appellant No.1 must and should state about the ceremony of adoption performed, the ceremony of "datta homam". Adoption is usually for purpose of informing the society as adoption results in changing the course of succession. There is no material on record to indicate ceremony of adoption and the physical act of giving and taking, which is an essential requisite of the ceremony of adoption, except stating that in the year 1950, appellant No.1 was adopted by Venkata Kistaiah. 16. The appellant No.1 has approached the RDO in the year 1994 pleading that the entire extent of land was divided among his brothers and that he got the share of his brother B.Venkataratnam under an undertaking by paying Rs.1,50,000/- to B.Venkataratnam, he therefore could not have turned around and taken the plea of adoption as a final patta certificate in form III was issued on the plea of undertaking on payment Rs.1,50,000/-. It is pertinent to note that in the pahanies for the year 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the names of Raghunadham, Nararayana Venkatratnam and Kishan were shown as Occupants. This fact is not disputed. It is pertinent to note that in the pahanies for the year 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the names of Raghunadham, Nararayana Venkatratnam and Kishan were shown as Occupants. This fact is not disputed. The fact that pahanies for the years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 show the name of four brothers as occupants, is suffice to infer that subject land of Acs.29.03 guntas was divided among brothers. 17. For the above stated reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.