IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2174 of 2006 Between: Valichetti Bhavani and another ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, and another .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2174 of 2006 ORDER: In this revision filed under Section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, read with Section 115 of C.P.C., petitioners are the third parties and daughters of the original declarant. They seek to assail the correctness of the order in L.R.A.No.24 of 2000 dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari District, Eluru, which was filed at the instance of the respondent-State. Shorn of all the details and the several other contentions raised on both sides, it is pointed out that the appeal was originally filed along with the delay application and the same was though allowed initially, later on in this Court a revision was allowed setting aside the said order. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and the same was allowed and, accordingly, the delay was condoned. Subsequent to condonation of the delay, the matter was restored back to the lower appellate Tribunal and there was no proper opportunity for them to pursue their case and the lower appellate Tribunal decided the appeal hearing the respondent-State alone. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Perused the material available on record. There is no dispute in respect of the chequered events in the proceedings in the appeal, which was filed by the respondent- State along with an application to condone the delay. Ultimately, it is only at the stage of Supreme Court, the delay was condoned and the appeal was remitted back to the lower appellate Tribunal. There is also no dispute to the effect that subsequent to the orders of the Supreme Court the matter came back and there has been no notice to the petitioners. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the lower appellate Tribunal gave such notice to the petitioners. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are totally against the principles of natural justice especially when the matter involves substantial questions affecting the substantive rights of the parties. Necessarily an opportunity has to be given to the parties. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order in L.R.A.No.24 of 2000 dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari District, Eluru, is set aside and is remitted back to it for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to both sides. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J 15th July, 2010 CVRK