IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 16800 of 2008 Between: 1 Gunti Nagaratnamma, W/o. late Narasimhulu, R/o. D.No. 8/93/1/4, Manasa Nursing Home Street, Proddatur Road, Mydukur, Kadapa District. 2 Dasari Santhamma, W/o. D. Prakasham, R/o. D.No. 8/93/1/4, Manasa Nursing Home Street, Proddatur Road, Mydukur, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Tahsildar, Mydurkur Mandal, Kadapa District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned resumption orders of the land assigned of the Petitioners vide Ref.No. B/43/Myd/1/2007, dt. 06-04-07 illegally without giving notice/opportunity anf further action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the petitioners appeal summarily vide orders No. L.Dis(A)/1729/2007, dt. 20-12-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted in gross violation of principle of natural justice and in violation of Art. 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set a side the aforesaid impugned resumption orders of the 1st respondent and further orders of the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.16800 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners state that as against the orders dated 06.04.2007 passed by the ﬁrst respondent-Tahsildar resuming the land in question to the Government, they preferred appeal before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer but the said appeal was rejected by an endorsement dated 20.12.2007 stating that it is time barred. Aggrieved by the said orders of the second respondent, the petitioners ﬁled the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission with the following directions: The impugned endorsement dated 20.12.2007 is hereby set aside. The petitioners are directed to present the appeal papers returned to them along with condone delay petition before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer and on presenting the said appeal papers along with condone delay petition, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer shall consider the condone delay petition on its own merits and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 04.08.2008 VGSR