THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No. 24463 of 2007 Dated: 15-02-2008 Between:- Nandana Bhaskar Rao ..Petitioner And The Commissioner and Director of Settlement, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Survey Bhavan, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No. 24463 of 2007 :O R D E R: It is the case of the petitioner that Kothapeta village is Inam village which was held by Sri Varada Kameswara Rao Naidu and he let out the land in old survey No. 53/4 in favour of Makka Guranna more than seventy five years back. The said Makka Guranna having acquired occupancy rights sold away his rights in the lands in favour of Sakalabathulla Bheemudu, who is maternal grand father of the petitioner, under a registered sale deed dated 15-11-1940. The said purchaser executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 04-01- 1951 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is stated that as there was wrong classification of the nature of land in the revenue records at the time of resurvey, the petitioner filed an application for issuance of Ryotwari patta under Section 11 of Madras Estate Abolition Act and Conversion of Ryotwari Act with a petition to condone the delay. The said application was allowed. The third respondent aggrieved by the same filed R.P.No. 79 of 1984 before the first respondent. By order dated 18-02-1991 the first respondent allowed the R.P.No. 79 of 1984. Against the said order, the petitioner field revision before the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad i.e., P1/2087/91 and the same was allowed on 06-09-2004 and directed the Settlement Officer i.e., third respondent to dispose of the matter on merits. Thereafter third respondent through proceedings in Roc.No. 583/2003 FB dated 15-03-2003 rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of Ryotwari Patta. The petitioner thereafter filed revision i.e., R.P.No. 34/2004 (A1) before the first respondent. However, the matter was posted to 24-12-2004 and later adjourned to 28-01-2005. On that day, as the counsel of the petitioner did not appear due to traffic jam, the matter was dismissed for default. On 25-02-2005 an application was filed to set aside the default order dated 28-01-2005. After a lapse of two years, the first respondent through proceedings dated 08-05-2007 communicated the order of dismissal for default and the request to reopen the case was also dismissed by a memo dated 05-06-2007. The petitioner questions the said orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there cannot be any justification in dismissing the revision for the alleged absence of the petitioner on 28-01-2005 by the impugned order dated 08- 05-2007 that too after more than two years. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner and Director of Settlement, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, with a direction to reopen the case in R.P.No.34/2004 (A1) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Dated: 15-02-2008 Pvks/*