THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.10894 of 2009 (Dated : 08-09-2010) Between: Mannuru Venugopal Reddy S/o Venkata Subba Reddy ….Petitioner A n d The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.10894 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Mannuru Venugopal Reddy assailing the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by Tahsildar, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. The petitioner herein initially filed an application before the Tahasildar, Yerpedu Mandal for issuance of pattedar passbook in respect of Ac.4-49 cents comprising Survey No.34/2. The Tahasidar allowed the application of the petitioner. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati assailing the order passed by the Tahsildar, Yerpedu Mandal. The appellate authority set aside the order passed by the recording authority-2nd respondent and remanding the matter back to the recording authority for fresh consideration. Various other proceedings went on between the parties the details of which are not required to be mentioned in view of the order proposed to be passed. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 4.6.2009. An interim stay has also been granted on the even date, vide W.P.M.P.No.14003 of 2009. The respondents entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.2709 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 4.6.2009. 4. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The principal grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Tahasildar, Yerpedu Mandal, on remanding the matter by the appellate authority, has not put on notice before passing the order impugned in the writ petition. 7. The factual aspect of the writ petitioner being not put on notice, on remand, is not contradicted by the counsel appearing for the respondents. Even the order impugned in the writ petition does not indicate that the writ petitioner has been put on notice. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition is in violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, the same is set aside. The parties herein are directed to appear before the 2nd respondent to take up further proceedings. The 2nd respondent-Tahildar, Yerpedu Mandal is directed to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders afresh within a period of four weeks from the date on which the parties mark their appearance. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.08-9-2010 RAR