HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.802 of 2007 Dated:01.02.2007 Between: Pedapati Brahmanandam and others. …Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer and another. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.802 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled assailing the order dated 06.12.2006 in A.I.A.No.3/2006/C passed by the ﬁrst respondent whereunder the delay of four months eight days in ﬁling the appeal by the second respondent was condoned by the ﬁrst respondent. Be it also noted that by impugned order, the ﬁrst respondent also directed that no third party interest should be created in the land admeasuring Acs.8.56 cents in Survey Nos.128/17, 128/18 and 150/1 & 4 situated at Lankalapalem Village of Paravada Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. Petitioners 1 and 2 applied to the Inams Deputy Tahasildar (IDT), Visakhapatnam, for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). After conducting enquiry, the IDT issued the patta to petitioners 1 and 2 on 22.06.2006, who in turn sold the entire land under registered sale deed dated 14.09.2006 to petitioners 3 and 4. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the patta granted by the IDT, the second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 7(2) of the Act before the ﬁrst respondent. As there was a delay of four months eight days, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer moved an application for condonation of delay. The same was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer without even issuing notice to the petitioners. Therefore, they ﬁled the present Writ Petition. After getting instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-A) submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by mere condonation of delay in ﬁling the appeal. He, however, does not dispute that no notice was issued to the petitioners before the ﬁrst respondent passed orders condoning the delay. There is no denial that petitioners 1 and 2 got ryotwari patta for the entire extent of land. Therefore, they got a right to be heard before any appeal is disposed of or any application to condone the delay in ﬁling the appeal is disposed of. The ﬁrst respondent certainly erred in allowing the application ﬁled by the second respondent ex parte. For this reason, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the ﬁrst respondent, who is directed to issue notice to the petitioners herein regarding the application for condonation of delay, and then pass appropriate orders as to whether delay should be condoned or not. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.02.2007 vs