ORDER : (B.S. BHANUMATHI, J .) This revision is preferred against the order, dated 07.06.2022, allowing the revision filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein, in Ref. No.Sett.II(1)/156/2017, under Section 14A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam passed in D.Dis.No.11049/2015/C, dt.07.06.2017, confirming the order, dated 31.12.2013, of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, in AIP No.32 of 2013 granting ryotwari patta in favour of Smt. Peethala Papayamma w/o late Apparao for an extent of Ac.14.00 cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village covered by T.D No.3146. 2. Heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1 st respondent; Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2; Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent; and Sri N.V.S. Prasada Varma, learned counsel representing Sri B. Jagadish Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.7. 3. The chronology of events that lead to filing this revision petition, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The claimant, Smt. Peethala Papayamma, filed a claim petition before the Primary Tribunal-cum-Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of inam dry land in Old Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village in the erstwhile Visakhapatnam taluk, now, in Pendurthi Mandal under T.D.No.3146. She filed the sale deeds and link documents in support of her claim over the said property. The claimant stated that the land in Sy.No.30 of Vepagunta village measuring an extent of Ac.42.05 cents stands registered as inam dry and it was registered in the name of Sri Ayyalasomayajula Viswanadham and Bondili Bagwansingh respectively. Out of the total land of Ac.42.05 cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village, half share holder, Sri Bondili Bagwansingh leased out an extent of Ac.21.02 ½ cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village covered by cashew and mango plantation in favour of her father-in-law, Peethala Appalaswamy S/o Ankulu initially for a period of 10 years for the Fasli 1352 to 1362, i.e., 15.04.1942 to 15.03.1952 @ R.50/- per year towards cowl. Thus, the entire land is under the occupation of her father-in-law, Sri Peethala Appalaswamy, and thereafter, under the occupation of her husband, Sri Peethala Apparao. Thus, the entire land is under the occupation of her father-in-law, Sri Peethala Appalaswamy, and thereafter, under the occupation of her husband, Sri Peethala Apparao. The said land is an inam land and she is entitled to 2/3 rd share from out of the share of Ac.21.02 ½ cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village by virtue of the mukthagalla executed by her late father-in-law and requested to allow ryotwari patta for 2/3 rd share out of Ac.21.02 ½ cents held by the inamdar, Bondili Bagwansingh, under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Inam Abolition Act,1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). b. Pursuant to the common judgment, dated 15.04.1982, of this High Court in W.A.No.874 of 1982 and W.P.No.7599, 7586 and 7640 of 1982, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi, took up fresh enquiry under Section 3(1) of the Act and held that all the lands in the schedule ‘A’, i.e., Poramboke lands in an extent of Ac.583.13 cents and banjar lands in an extent of Ac.1.61 cents vest in the government, free from all encumbrances, and the lands in Schedule ‘B’ measuring an extent of Ac.639.77 cents vest with the diety of Simhachalam devasthanam and that the devasthanam is entitled to ryotwari patta for the lands in ‘B’Schedule. c. Aggrieved by the said order, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam (‘Devasthanam’) authorities filed an appeal before the appellate authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. The then RDO, by proceedings, dated 28.02.1990, in AIA No.5 of 1989 dismissed the appeal preferred by the Devasthanam authorities and upheld the decision of the MRO, Pendurthi. d. Thereupon, the Devasthanam authorities filed revision under Section 14-A of the Act before the revisional authority and Commissioner, Survey and Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, against the orders of the appellate Court. The revisional authority, by order, dated 08.01.1996, dismissed the revision holding that no evidence was produced before him. Thus, the order passed by the MRO, Pendurthi was upheld by the Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad. The revisional authority, by order, dated 08.01.1996, dismissed the revision holding that no evidence was produced before him. Thus, the order passed by the MRO, Pendurthi was upheld by the Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad. e. On perusal of the order passed by the then MRO, Pendurthi, after examining the relevant records and after enquiring into the matter, the primary authority/Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, by order, dated 31.12.2013, in AIP No.32/2013 finally held as follows: “In the above circumstances, I hold that under the provisions of I.A. Act, 1956, the claimant, i.e., Smt. Peethala Papayamma, wife of late Apparao is entitled ryotwari patta for Ac.14.00 cents of 2/3 rd share from out of Ac.21.02 ½ cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village in Pendurthi Mandal since Vepagunta village, Pendurhti Mandal is an Inam village and it is not held by any institution. Hence, the claimant is entitled to ryotwari patta for Ac.14.00 cents of 2/3 rd share under Section 7(1) of the I. A. Act, 1956 in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of I.A. Act as shown in the schedule of this order……” f. Aggrieved by the orders of the primary authority/Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam/respondent No.5, respondents 2 & 3 (‘A’ party) filed petition to suspend the orders, dated 31.12.2013. Similarly, devasthanam/respondent No.7 (‘B’ party) filed an appeal under Section 7(1) of the A.P (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1956, assailing the orders, dated 31.12.2013, of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam. g. The appellate authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam/4 th respondent, dismissed the appeal, by order, dated 07.06.2017. Similarly, devasthanam/respondent No.7 (‘B’ party) filed an appeal under Section 7(1) of the A.P (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1956, assailing the orders, dated 31.12.2013, of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam. g. The appellate authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam/4 th respondent, dismissed the appeal, by order, dated 07.06.2017. The operative portion of the order in the appeal is as follows: “…It is clear that being tenant Sri Peethala Appalaswamy who is the father-in-law of 2 nd respondent had statutory rights under the provisions of A.P.Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and he was in occupation of Ac.21.02 cents till his death and after his demise, her husband (late Appa Rao) was in occupation of said land and therefore, 2 nd respondent has rightly granted Ryotwari Patta for Ac.14.00 cents under AIP No.32/2013, dated 31.12.2013 and the documents bearing Nos.368/1954 and 1873/1962 and the sale deeds in favour of 1 st appellant are not valid under law and they are null and void, since he statutory rights of the tenants cannot be taken away by sale or transfer of the land by the Inamdar. Any such so called sales, cannot be pressed into service to defeat the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, a beneficial legislation which provides for 2/3 rd share being granted under ryotwari patta to the tenant, since the inamdar cannot dispose of any land, particularly that occupied by the tenant, after the said Act coming into force. In view of the above findings, I don’t find any reason to interfere with the order, dated 31.12.2013, passed in AIP No.32/2012 by the primary authority and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” h. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority/RDO, Visakhapatnam, respondents 2 & 3 filed revision petition before the Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh. The Commissioner of Appeals, by order, dated 07.06.2022, allowed the revision petition holding as follows: “… In view of the above observations, the order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, passed in AIP No.32/2013, dt.31.12.2013, and the order of the RDO, Visakhapatnam passed in D.Dis.No.11049/2015/C, dated 07.06.2017 are hereby set aside. Consequently, the Tahsildar, Pendurthi Mandal is hereby directed to grant ryotwari patta for the schedule land in favour of the revision petitioners under provisions prescribed in A.P (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. Consequently, the Tahsildar, Pendurthi Mandal is hereby directed to grant ryotwari patta for the schedule land in favour of the revision petitioners under provisions prescribed in A.P (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. In the result, the revision petition hereby allowed.” i. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner allowing the revision, this revision petition is preferred by the petitioner, Peethala Papayamma, before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly submitted that the officer who passed the impugned order never heard the case and the matter was heard finally and reserved for orders on 21.12.2021 by his predecessor who retired without passing any order and thereafter, the matter was called by the successor officer only on 11.05.2022 and without hearing the case and without granting a further date, the impugned order, dated 07.06.2022, was passed straightaway. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the lands covered by Sy.No.30 of Vepagunta village is minor inam land though situated in an inam village but not held by the institution or devasthanam and devasthanam has no right over the land covered by S.No.30 of Vepagunta village. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the subject landed property covered by S.No.30 of Vepagunta revenue village of Pendurthi Mandal are absolutely private individual properties and that either the petitioner or the 7 th respondent do not have any right, title, interest, possession or enjoyment over the same and as such, they cannot claim the land the revision is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. 5. The revision petitioner raised the following grounds: (i) The impugned order, dated 07.06.2022, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice; (ii) The impugned order resulted in grave traversity of justice as the order was passed by an officer who never heard the case; (iii) The revisional authority(R1) neither took into account the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner who was the 4 th respondent therein nor considered the written submissions filed by the petitioner herein; (iv) The revisional authority failed to answer the objections raised by the petitioner on the question of locus standi of the respondents 2 and 3 herein to contest the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner; (v) The revisional authority erred in placing reliance on the adjudication in O.S.No.192 of 1997, a suit for injunction purportedly filed by the 2 nd respondent herein inasmuch as the same is barred by law of limitation as suits cannot be maintained when the statutory authorities under the A.P (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 are seized of the same issue; (vi) The revisional authority failed to see that the statutory rights of tenants are protected by Section 4 of the A.P (A.A) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and that the so called sales being relied upon by the respondents 2 and 3 would not confer any right on them for grant of ryotwari patta. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the following decisions:- (i) Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors , MANU/AP/2751/2022 (W.P.No.18646 of 2015, dated 05.12.2022) (ii) Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat vs. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu and Ors , 191 Supp(2) Supreme Court Cases 228 (iii) Nellore Bujjanna and another Vs. The Tahsildar, Rapur Taluk, Rapur, and anothe, 3 1979 SCC Online AP 140: (1980) 1 ALT 107 7. During the course of arguments, a memo, dated 10.05.2024, was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner enclosing copy of the letter, dated 20.04.2024, of the Tahsildar, Pendurthi, in Rc.No.241/2024/A. The said memo is taken on record and the operative portion of the said letter, dated 20.04.2024, addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vishakhapatnam, by the Tahsildar, Pendurthi, reads as hereunder: “I invite kind attention to the references cited. I invite kind attention to the references cited, wherein in the reference cited, Smt. Peethala Papayamma W/o late Apparao R/o late Apparao R/o Door No.27-130, Appannapalem, Vepagunta (V), Pendurthi (M), Visakhapatnam has filed a Civil Revision Petition before the Hon’ble High Court against the Commissioner (Appeals),O/ Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Gollapudi, Vijayawada, and 06 others. The brief history of the case is furnished below for proper appraisal— - Vepagunta village in Pendurthi Mandal is not an Inam Estate, but it is the whole Inam village. All the inams were abolished consequent on the enactment of A.P (AA) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1956. It is, therefore, necessary to determine the tenure of the inam lands in the village by the competent authority under the provisions of the said Act. - According to the pre-settlement records, i.e., Gilman Register of Vepagunta (V), the following subject land is stands classified as “Inam Mettu”. Sl. No. Survey No. Extent (Ac.cts.) 1 30 42.05 - The Survey and Settlement Register of Vepagunta village was introduced in the year 1905 after completion of Survey and Settlement operations conducted by Mr. Gilman, the then Special Agent to Government. The register known as “Gilman Register” and it was prepared in the year 1904. In this register the names of Sri Aylla Somayajula Viswnadham and Sri Bondili Bhagavan Singh were registered - I further submit that, as per FMD record, the Survey No.30 comprises an extent of Ac.42.05 cents of Vepagunta village and there are no sub-division in Sy.No.30 as per the FMB available in Tahsildar’s office. - As per the webland adangal, the Sy.No.30 comprises an extent of Ac.42.05 cts stands classified as Govt. land recorded as Devasthanam in pattadar and enjoyer column. - I further submit that as seen in Prohibited Properties u/s 22-A register the Sy.No.30 is not entered/found in any of the categories. In this connection, this office field staff, i.e., Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer have reported that the entire land is covered with mango grooves, coconut and cashew trees. The subject land for an extent of Ac.14.00 cts is fenced. A board has been erected stating that this land belongs to Pethala Papayamma and others. There are 03 structures by way of 02 ACC sheds and one RCC slabbed house belonging to Peethala Papayamma represented Peethala Appalaraju G.P.A Holder. The subject land for an extent of Ac.14.00 cts is fenced. A board has been erected stating that this land belongs to Pethala Papayamma and others. There are 03 structures by way of 02 ACC sheds and one RCC slabbed house belonging to Peethala Papayamma represented Peethala Appalaraju G.P.A Holder. In view of the above explained, the detailed report is herewith submitted for kind perusal.” 8. Both parties filed written arguments. 9. Perused the record and the written submissions. 10. One of the rules which constitutes a part of the principles of natural justice is the rule of audi alteram partem which requires that no man should be condemned unheard. It is indeed a requirement of the duty to act fairly which lies on all quasi-judicial authorities involving civil consequences or affecting rights of parties. 11. Paragraph No.3 of the impugned order reads as follows: “The revision petition has been taken on file and the case was finally called on 11.05.2022. The counsel for the revision petitioners Sri G.V.D.V. Bhaskara Reddy & D.Sukanya, the Government pleader for the respondent No.1 to 3, counsel for the 4 th respondent Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar were present and the 5 th respondent called absent. The revision petitioners, 4 th and 5 th respondents filed their respective written arguments.” 12. It is not in dispute that the predecessor-in-office of the 1 st respondent heard the matter and reserved for orders on 21.12.2021 and that thereafter the matter was only once called on 11.05.2022 and later, the impugned order was passed on 07.06.2022. Thus, from the above noted order, it is clear that the case was finally called on 11.05.2022, but the order impugned does not indicate that the counsel for the petitioner was heard by the 1 st respondent on 11.05.2022. Obviously, the matter was not called for hearing on any other day before passing order finally on 07.06.2022. Thus, the impugned order, dated07.06.2022, was passed straightaway. 13. As such, this is a matter fit to be remanded for fresh disposal after hearing both parties and pass order afresh on merits. 14. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 07.06.2022, passed in Ref. No.Sett.II(1)/156/2017, and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 14. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 07.06.2022, passed in Ref. No.Sett.II(1)/156/2017, and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The matter shall be disposed within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties shall cooperate for early disposal. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.