THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.926 of 2010 ORDER: The land in Survey No.51 is vast in extent viz., about Ac.11.00. The 4th respondent is said to have sold an extent of Ac.1.37 guntas of land in favour of one Mr.Prithviraj Gir from out of a sub-division of that survey number in the year 1970. The petitioner in turn purchased an extent of Ac.1.31½ guntas of land out of Ac.1.37 guntas from Prithviraj Gir in the year 1978. On a request made by it, the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, 3rd respondent herein issued proceedings dated 20.06.1998 directing issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, 2nd respondent herein against issuance of pattdar pass books in favour of the petitioner and the relevant entries in the revenue records. The appeal was allowed through proceedings dated 15.12.2007. The petitioner challenges the same. It is urged that the 2nd respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner and that the impugned proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice. The 2nd respondent appeared and stated that by mistake, the matter was taken up without ensuring service of notice to the petitioner. Respondents 6 and 7, who are said to have purchased the land from the respondent No.4, filed a counter affidavit, raising objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to them, the petitioner has to avail the remedy of revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattdar pass Books Act or to file a suit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader of Revenue, Sri R,Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri Vijay B.Paropkari, leaned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. The 4th respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent feeling aggrieved by the issuance of patatdar pass books and entries made in favour of the petitioner. The entries were made and pattadar pass books were issued in the year 1991, whereas the appeal was preferred in the year 2007. It is brought to the notice of this Court that when the 4th respondent filed an appeal on earlier occasion before 2005, it was rejected on the grounds of limitation. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that it was passed ex parte and without discussing the question of limitation. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has produced the relevant file and it is evident that no notice was served upon the petitioner at all. The impugned order suffers from two serious defects viz., non- service of notice to the aggrieved party and entertaining the appeal without reference to the question of limitation after more than a decade. These two grounds are sufficient to set aside the impugned order. It is brought notice to the notice of this Court that respondents 6 and 7 have already filed a suit. Having regard to the nature of dispute and passage of time, the 2nd respondent cannot be expected to address those issues. The affected parties have to work out their remedies in a civil Court. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order and all the consequential proceedings that ensued thereafter are set aside. It is left open to respondents 6 and 7 to work out their remedies in a civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15.02.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.926 of 2010 Date: 15.02.2010 JSU