THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4827 of 2010 June 10, 2010 Between: B.A.Chandra Mohan, S/o.Bhupalam Aswarthanarayana Setty … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Anantapur And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4827 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order/proceedings dated 03.12.2007 of the first respondent passed in purported exercise of power under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act). The case of the petitioner is that his paternal grandfather was absolute owner of land admeasuring Acs.8.83 in survey No.61-2 situated at Hindupur. He and petitioner’s father partitioned under registered document dated 06.4.1959. Thereafter petitioner and his father again partitioned under registered document dated 04.8.1971. In the said partition, petitioner and his brother Krishna Prakash got Acs.4.41 and Acs.4.43 in survey No.61-2 respectively. Their names were also entered in the revenue records and they obtained Pattadar Pass Books (PPBs). Petitioner also states that he dug bore wells and obtained electricity connection for the purpose of irrigation. Having come to know that fourth respondent obtained PPBs in respect of the same lands, petitioner approached the second respondent who by proceedings dated 30.8.2003 cancelled PPB issued in favour of fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the same, fourth respondent preferred revision before the Joint Collector, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 03.12.2007 directing de novo enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). In this writ petition, the only ground urged is that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, first respondent failed to issue notice as mandated by the proviso to Section 9 of the Act and Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules). This Court heard the counsel for petitioner, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) and the counsel for fourth respondent. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent shows that no notice was issued to petitioner or his brother. Therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the first respondent suffers from error apparent on the face of record warranting interference by this Court. On this limited ground, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Collector. He shall issue notice to petitioner, fourth respondent and other parties interested in the subject land, pass appropriate orders with reasons after duly hearing the parties and communicate a copy of the order to petitioner and fourth respondent. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 10, 2010 YS