IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13579 of 2008 Between: Iska Venkata Saibaba Reddy, S/o. subbarami reddy, R/o. D.No.16/1569, Rama Murthy Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nellore,Nellore District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore,Nellore District. 3 Tahsildar, Nellore Mandal,Nellore District. 4 Mejuru Narayana, S/o. Papaiah, R/o. Kothamitta Palem, Village, Nellore Mandal,Nellore District. 5 Smt. Mejuru Bujjamma, W/o. Narayana, R/o. Kothamitta Palem, Village, Nellore Mandal,Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the Endorsement of the 1st respondent made in Rc.E3/2188/08 dated 23-5-2008 as illegal, and arbitrary and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to entertain the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the 2nd respondent and consider the revision petition on merits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: N.C.DASS. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner filed a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Joint Collector, Nellore, Nellore District, the first respondent herein, aggrieved by the order, dated 16.10.2006, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, Nellore District, the second respondent herein, through an endorsement, dated 23.05.2008. The first respondent rejected the revision as time barred. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Basically, Section 9 of the Act does not stipulate any period of limitation for filing of revision thereunder. Even otherwise, in case the first respondent felt that there was delay in presentation of the revision, he ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner and form an opinion after hearing him. The impugned endorsement was made without hearing the petitioner and ignoring the actual purport of Section 9 of the Act. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent shall consider the matter afresh, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after issuing notice and opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:01.04.2009 sj