IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.371 of 2006 Between: Karre Shankaraiah & 10 others … Petitioners And: The Joint Collector, RR District & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.371 of 2006 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.2003 in Case No.F2/8225/2003 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, wherein, the said appeal filed by the petitioners/appellants under Section 90 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, Hyderabad West division, by proceedings No.LRW 168/75 dated 02.06.1975 issued ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in favour of the father of the respondents in respect of Ac.3.05 guntas in Sy.No.97 of Nagireddiguda village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/ appellants filed an appeal before the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Act. The appeal was field on 25.08.2003, nearly 28 years after issuance of the ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the Joint collector by impugned order on the ground that the appeal was not filed with reasonable time. 4. It is noted in the preamble of the impugned order that the appeal is filed with a delay of more than 28 years and the appellants have not filed any petition to condone the delay. According to the appellants, the appeal was dismissed, without affording any opportunity and without issuing notice and without fixing any date of hearing. They plead that in the grounds of appeal it is stated that the issuance of impugned certificate came to their knowledge only after the respondents filed application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for restoration of possession and that immediately, they obtained certified copy and filed the appeal on 25.07.2003. Thus, according them, the appeal is within time from the date of knowledge and therefore, they did not file any petition to condone the delay. 5. According to the appellants, an extent of Ac.13.25 guntas in Sy.No.97 was cultivated by their ancestors Karre Agaiah and his brother K Rajaiah and that the father of the respondents by name Golla Gangaiah has no concerned with the same and he never in possession. They further contend that to protect the tenancy, the name of K Agaiah is recorded as protected tenant. But in spite of it, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer issued the impugned certificate in favour of the respondents’ father without notice to the appellants or their predecessors. 6. Be that as it may, as seen from the impugned order, no notice appears to have been issued to the appellants, fixing any date of hearing. The question as to whether or not the delay in filing of the appeal was duly explained by the appellants is also not considered. The appeal was dismissed only for the reason that it was filed about 28 years after issuance of the certificate. According to the appellants, the certificate was issued contrary to the records and registers and without any notice to them or their predecessors and even the appeal filed by them after coming to know of the issuance of the certificate in 2003, was also dismissed, without giving any opportunity of hearing and without fixing any date of hearing. 7. In the circumstances, without going in to the merits of the case, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, to consider the matter afresh, including the question of delay in filing the appeal, after issuing notice to the appellants, fixing the date of hearing and giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 8. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.02.2011 bss