THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.1429 OF 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both the sides. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari District, by order in Roc.A.1124/2006, dated 15.10.2006, cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds granted in favour of the writ petitioners. Challenging the same, the writ petition W.P.No.21750/2007 was filed on the ground that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned single Judge by order, dated 11.10.2007, disposed of the writ petition with the following direction: “5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners are permitted to file a revision before the Collector, under Section 9 of the Act within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order against the said orders of the 1st respondent, and if any such revision is filed status quo obtaining as on today with regard to entries in the revenue records shall be maintained pending disposal of the revision.” 4. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned single judge, the unofficial 3rd respondent in the writ petition, filed the present writ appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant filed a caveat on 18.10.2006 and the same was received by the respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e., writ petitioners on 24.10.2006 and the writ petition was filed in the month of September, 2007, despite which, the name of the caveator was not printed in the cause list and the learned single Judge, without giving any opportunity to the counsel for the appellant, disposed of the writ petition, at the stage of admission. 6. From the above submissions, it could be seen that the caveat was filed on 18.10.2006 and after a period of three moths, the same would lapse. Therefore, printing the name of the caveator in the cause list would not arise. 7. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if the respondents 1 and 2 herein, approached the Collector challenging the impugned orders in the writ petition, dated 15.10.2006, the same would have been rejected on the grounds of delay and latches, but the respondents 1 and 2 filed writ petition. He contended that the learned single Judge is not justified in granting time to them to file revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 8. A bare perusal of Section 9 of the Act would reveal that no period of limitation is prescribed. However, the appellant cannot be deprived of agitating the ground of limitation in the revision. Both the counsel admitted that the matter is pending before the revisional authority i.e., District Collector and the stage of the matter is not known. 9. Therefore, suffice it to dispose of the writ appeal giving liberty to the appellant to take all objections, including that of limitation, if not already taken, and the revisional authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly the writ appeal is disposed of, at the stage of admission. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ D.S.R.VARMA,J ----------------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:25.11.2008 AVS