ORDER : (Ravi Cheemalapati, J.) Questioning the proceedings vide Ref.No.F1/2375/2020 dated 14.10.2022 issued by respondent No.2 declaring the Ryotwari Patta issued by to petitioner No.4 with regard to the land in Survey No.7/1 to an extent of Ac.0.83 cents and Survey No.8/8 to an extent of Ac.0.89 cents of Krishnapuram village, C.K.Dinne Mandal under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘Inams Act, 1956’) as null and void, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Prasanti Gude, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the sthotriyumdars of the subject land, having inherited the same from their ancestors and petitioner No.4 purchased the said property from petitioner Nos.1 to 3 under registered sale deed dated 17.12.2018 and since the date of purchase, petitioner No.4 has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till date. He further submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed applications before respondent No.4 seeking for grant of Ryotwari pattas in respect of the subject land which is Inam land. On coming to know about the same, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 made a representation to respondent No.4 stating that they are the Inamdars and that they sold it to petitioner No.4 under registered sale deed and petitioner No.4 is in possession of the subject land. Respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 20.01.2020 passed orders holding that petitioner No.4 purchased the subject land in good faith and for valuable consideration and got title over the subject land, as such he is entitled to Ryotwari patta in accordance with Section 4 of Inams Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 7(2) of the Act and respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 08.08.2020 remanded the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration and for passing appropriate orders according to the Act and Rules in force, after giving reasonable opportunity to all interested parties. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 7(2) of the Act and respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 08.08.2020 remanded the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration and for passing appropriate orders according to the Act and Rules in force, after giving reasonable opportunity to all interested parties. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 10A(2) of the Act and respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 14.10.2022 passed orders holding that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are eligible to claim Ryotwari patta under the Estates (Abolition and Conversion of Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘Act of 1948’) and given liberty to respondent Nos.5 and 6 to make application before the competent authority. He further submitted that respondent No.2-Joint Collector without proper application of mind has treated the subject land as Estate land and passed orders exceeding his jurisdiction. Challenging the said proceedings of respondent No.2, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on counter of respondent No.2, contended that the unofficial respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 and 6 made a representation before respondent No.2-Joint Collector, stating that they have filed appeal before the then Joint Collector, Kadapa against the petitioners regarding issuance of Ryotwari Patta with regard to the subject property as they got the same through unregistered document in the year 1975 and since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, but the then Joint Collector, Kadapa did not pass any orders and the same is pending consideration, hence, he requested to reopen the case. Respondent No.2, after verification of the revenue records and in the light of the arguments submitted by the parties and after giving opportunity to both the petitioners and respondents, came to the conclusion that the unofficial respondents are eligible to claim pattadar pass book and directed them to make an application before the competent authority for issuance of pattadar pass book. He further submitted that an appeal from the orders of the Settlement Officer under Section 9 of the Act, 1948 lies to the Tribunal under Section 9(4) of the Act, 1948, but without availing the statutory remedy, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition which is not maintainable and the same is liable to the dismissed. 5. He further submitted that an appeal from the orders of the Settlement Officer under Section 9 of the Act, 1948 lies to the Tribunal under Section 9(4) of the Act, 1948, but without availing the statutory remedy, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition which is not maintainable and the same is liable to the dismissed. 5. Sri V.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submitted that the order of the Joint Collector is unsustainable on the ground that he has treated the subject land as Estate land which is not correct. In fact the unofficial respondents have also intention to question the same, but in the meantime, the petitioners have questioned the orders of the Joint Collector. The unofficial respondents have no objection to remand back the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration as directed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. Perused the record. 7. The case of petitioner No.4 is that he purchased the subject land from petitioner Nos.1 to 3 under registered sale deed vide document bearing No.9182 of 2018, dated 17.12.2018. Respondent No.4-Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne vide Ref. No.A/62/2020 dated 20.01.2020 has issued Ryotwari Patta to the subject property in favour of petitioner No.4 under Section 4 of the Inams Act. The record would also indicate that respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed applications before the Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne for grant of Ryotwari pattas in respect of Inam lands on the ground that they purchased the same from the Inamdars, for which the Tahsildar has issued notice dated 02.01.2019 to respondent Nos.5 and 6 and to the Inamdars calling them to adduce evidence in support of their right over the subject land. 8. Aggrieved by issuance of notice dated 02.01.2019 by the Tahsildar, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed Writ Petition Nos.322 of 2019 and 324 of 2019 and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petitions directing the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the procedure established by law, after considering the explanation/reply of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Pursuant thereto, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have offered their explanation duly stating that the subject land i.e., Inam land was purchased by way of unregistered agreement in the year 1975 from Inamdars for valuable consideration of Rs.1300/- per acre and ever since they are in possession and enjoyment of the said land by paying land tax and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. In response to the notice issued by the Tahsildar, the Inamdars i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 3 offered their explanation stating that the paternal grandfather of petitioner No.3 has taken petitioner No.3 for adoption and that the subject land was inherited through their ancestors and petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are the rightful Inamdars of the subject land and the said land was never sold/leased/mortgaged to respondent Nos.5 and 6. The record also reveals that the Tahsildar has issued proceedings dated 20.01.2020 holding that the petitioner No.4, who purchased the land from Inamdars, is in possession and enjoyment over the subject land, as such, he is entitled to Rytwari patta for the subject land in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Inams Act. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 7(2) of the Act. Respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 08.08.2020 remanded the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh denovo enquiry and to pass reasonable and appropriate orders according to the Act and rules in force after giving reasonable opportunity to all the interested parties. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed appeal before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 14.10.2022 allowed the appeal stating that the subject land is an estate land and that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not competent to issue Rytwari Patta and declared that Ryotwari patta granted in favour of petitioner No.4 by respondent No.4 is null and void and that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are eligible to claim Ryotwari Patta under the Estates (Abolition and Conversion of Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and given liberty to respondent Nos.5 and 6 to make an application before the competent authority. 9. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.2-Joint Collector, without proper application of mind and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, passed the impugned order treating the subject land as Estate land which is neither the case of the petitioners nor the unofficial respondents. Even otherwise, the unofficial respondents have no legal ground or authority to question the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer before respondent No.2, As such, the said order is unsustainable both on facts and law. 10. Even otherwise, the unofficial respondents have no legal ground or authority to question the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer before respondent No.2, As such, the said order is unsustainable both on facts and law. 10. On the other hand, Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that the Joint Collector has not properly taken up the matter into consideration and treated the subject land as Estate land which is not correct and the unofficial respondents have no objection to remand back the matter for fresh consideration to respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional officer. 11. Perusal of the order of the Revenue division Officer shows that appeal against the order lies before the Joint Collector under Section 10A(2) of the Inams Act. Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (A.A) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 reads as follows: 10. Inam lands to be leased after eviction of a tenant under Section 9 - Where a tenant is evicted under Section 9 from in inam land the institution holding the inam land shall after publishing a notice in the prescribed manner lease out the said inam land. Inam lands to be leased after eviction of a tenant under Section 9 - Where a tenant is evicted under Section 9 from in inam land the institution holding the inam land shall after publishing a notice in the prescribed manner lease out the said inam land. 2[10-A. Application of the Act to Inam lands in Ryotwari or Zamindari Villages: - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the Revenue Court either suo motu or on an application made to it within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1975, is satisfied, after making an enquiry, that a tenant of any inam land in a ryotwari or zamindari village has possessed the right of permanent occupancy in that land by virtue of any custom or usage having the force of law or any judgment, decree or order of a competent Court it may make a declaration to that effect and on such declaration the provisions of this Act shall apply to such inam land as if such inam land is in an inam village: Provided that where a ryotwari patta has already been granted to the inamdar in respect of any inam land in any ryotwari or zamindari village prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1975, any tenant of such land who, on the date of such grant, possessed the right of permanent occupancy in that land by virtue of any custom or usage having the force of law or any judgment, decree or order of a competent Court, shall, notwithstanding such grant continue to possess the said right. (2) Any person or institution aggrieved by an order of the Revenue Court under sub-section (1), may appeal to the Collector within sixty days from the date of communication of such order and the Collector may after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the appeal as he thinks fit. (2) Any person or institution aggrieved by an order of the Revenue Court under sub-section (1), may appeal to the Collector within sixty days from the date of communication of such order and the Collector may after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the appeal as he thinks fit. Section 10 of the Act applies in case of tenants who possess the right of permanent occupancy either in Ryothwari or zamindari villages, but it is case of the unofficial respondents that they claim title over the subject property basing on unregistered agreement of sale, as such respondent No.2 has no authority to entertain the appeal, as such preferring an appeal does not arise. 12. Therefore, this is a fit case to confirm the order of respondent No.3 in remanding back the matter for fresh adjudication. Further, both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as unofficial respondents have reported no objection for such a course. Hence, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: The order of respondent No.2 dated 14.10.2022 is set aside by confirming the remand order of respondent No.3 dated 08.08.2020. Respondent No.4 is directed to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders as per the rules in vogue after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned as per directions, if any, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.