THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.24497 OF 2000 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent – Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in Case No.D1/ROR/38/99 dated 27.12.1999 in deleting the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.85, Acs.2-19 gts. situate at Sankalmandi village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabobnagar District and thereby substituting the names of respondents 4 to 7, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The writ petitioner is one Dr.Ramsetti Krishnaiah and he is represented through his G.P.A. holder K.Shanker. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.85 admeasuring Acs.2- 48 gts. situate at Sankalmanddi village, Mahaboobnagar District since the date of purchase in the year 1977 and he has been cultivating the land through a tenant and that Tahsaldar, Jedcherla of Mahaboobnagar District, issued pass book and title deeds and his name has been recorded in the revenue records viz., pahanies for the last three decades ie., up to the year 1998-99. The petitioners is a doctor practicing at U.S.A. for the last twenty years and that surprisingly when he visited India during July, 2000 he came to the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.12.1999 deleting him name and substituted the names of respondents 4 to 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, he sought to set aside the impugned order. 4. The 1st respondent – Joint Collector counter affidavit and while justifying the impugned order and denying the averment of the petitioner with regard to violation of the principles of natural justice stated at paragraph no.8 that notice issued in favour of the respondent therein could not be served by the Mandal Revenue Officer Addakal, as it is clear from the certification made on the notice that one Sri Rama Setti Krishnaiah, S/o B.Narayana Rao R/o Sankalmanddi village, is not residing in the village. Hence, notice issued in the name of the respondent therein, could not be served and as such a copy of notice was affixed on the Gram Chawedi. With this averment, inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. The above facts needs no reiteration. The only grievance of the petitioner is that before deleting his name, no notice has been served on him. In the counter affidavit also it is categorically stated that notice could not be served on the petitioner and hence it was affixed on the gram chawedi. In this connection, it is expedient to note Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 197. The same is extracted as under for better appreciation: 9. Revision: The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for an examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appeals to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation. 6. From the above provision and also from Rules 5(2) and 14 the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Rules, 1989 it could be seen that the notice shall be served on the person against whom an order is sought to be passed and in case of his absence, procedure is contemplated to serve notice. 7. The impugned order does not disclose that before deleting the name of the petitioner and substituting the name of respondents 4 to 7, the procedure contemplated under the Act and the rules made thereunder has been followed. Therefore, it is to be held that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording both the parties sufficient opportunity. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS -------------------- 20—08—2010