THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Civil Revision Petition No.3684 of 2005 Order: Heard Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. This revision is at the instance of respondent Nos.24, 25 and 26 who are the LRs of respondent No.18 before the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy (appellate authority). They filed the present civil revision petition under Section 28 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the orders, dated 30.04.2005, passed by the appellate authority allowing the appeal filed by the third respondent under Section 24 of the Act and setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) issued in favour of the respondents therein. Briefly stated the facts, as subjected across the bar, are that the petitioners claim to be the LRs of respondent No.18, before the appellate authority, namely, Waheed Ahmed @ Chote Patel S/o Ismail Sab, who died and hence, they were brought on record as his LRs. It is stated that as long back on 18.08.1977, ORC was granted in favour of the father of the petitioners to an extent of Acs.38.27 of land situated in Survey Nos.148, 156 and 159 under Section 10 of the Act and since then, their father had been in possession and after his demise, they claim to be in possession of the said land. Yet, the third respondent claiming to be the landlord filled an appeal in the year 2000 i.e., after 23 years, as against grant of ORC in respect of lands situated in Survey Nos.154, 155, 16, 158, 2, 118, 148 and 149, admeasuring Acs.113.22 guntas situated at Tornal Village, Manoor Mandal, Medak District. The main contention urged on behalf of the third respondent before the appellate authority in the appeal was that he has come to know about the said proceedings only on 06.05.2000 and raised several contentions as to the disentitlement of the petitioners for ORC. The petitioners, through their father, appeared before the appellate authority and filed a detailed counter affidavit raising several contentions, including that the appeal is barred by limitation and also the locus standi of the third respondent. In spite of the same, the appellate authority without going into the plea of limitation and other contentions, simply sought to proceed on the ground that the impugned ORCs were issued during special drive based on the recommendations of the Mandal Revenue Offier, Manoor and therefore, thought it fit to set aside the same and accordingly allowed the appeal by setting aside the ORCs. Hence, the present civil revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though the appeal was filed almost 23 years after grant of ORCs and in spite of a specific plea has been taken about the limitation, the same has not been considered and no finding thereon has been arrived at. He also submitted that the claim sought by the third respondent vis-à- vis the claims of the petitioners have not been considered nor kept in view. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that even though there are 26 respondents in the appeal, it is only respondent No.18, since he died respondent Nos.24, 25 and 26, who are his LRs, approached this Court and no other respondents have approached this Court. Therefore, he submitted that partly the impugned order has become final. Having considered the submissions made and also on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that both the parties herein did make their appearance and made several claims, including the plea of limitation. As could be seen from the impugned order, except making note of the remarks of the Subordinates, and quoting that the matter was heard and records were perused, the main order contains only two paras. This practice has been deprecated repeatedly on many occasions. Necessarily, the order has to be passed by the Officer or the authority himself not by borrowing notes from the Subordinates, and also should contain the grounds raised on both sides and the categorical findings thereon. In the absence of the same, it can safely be concluded that the entire exercise is vitiated and that is how the appellate authority, who is a responsible Officer, simply brushed aside the ORC on the ground that the same was granted during special drive based on the recommendation made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manoor and there is no basis to blame the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manoor at the relevant point of time. Apparently, no action has been taken by the authorities concerned as against such ORCs issued during special drive or found to be otherwise vitiated. In view of the same, the entire approach of the appellate authority is totally misconceived and baseless. Since the plea of limitation has not been considered nor any finding as such is arrived at, it is felt desirable that the matter should be remitted back for disposal afresh only to the extent of the petitioners herein. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent of the petitioners alone is set aside and the matter is remitted back for disposal afresh in accordance with law, after giving notice to both the parties. It is needless to mention that the parties are at liberty to raise all contentions available to them under law, which shall be considered on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Date:19.08.2010 VGB