THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 16189 of 2004 Oral order: Assailing the order dated 25.08.2001, passed by respondent No.1, namely the District Collector, East Godavari, dismissing the appeal in C.M.A. No. 26 of 1997 and confirming the order dated 05.08.1009 passed by respondent No.3, namely the Special Deputy Collector, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari, in L.T.R.P. No. 94 of 1996, directing ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority did not consider any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal and without issuing any notice of hearing of the appeal, much less as contemplated under the Act and Rules, dismissed the appeal. He submitted that the ground on which the appeal has been dismissed, namely that the petitioner did not appear before him in spite of the Special Deputy Collector personally informing the petitioner that the case stands posted to 25.08.2001, is erroneous, because no notice of hearing was issued. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. This Court by order dated 27.08.2002 while admitting the writ petition granted status quo as regards possession obtaining as on that date. In spite of the writ petition being admitted, the respondents have not filed counter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the impugned order. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is very cryptic and not a reasoned one. The petitioner, though raised several grounds against the order of respondent No.3 in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the fact remains, respondent No.1, namely the appellate ,authority did not consider any of the grounds. Without considering any of the grounds passed a cryptic order stating that in spite of the petitioner being informed by the Deputy Collector about the hearing of the appeal, the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner disputed the issuance of any notice, as indicated in the impugned order, much less informed by the Special Deputy Collector about the hearing of the appeal. However, no material whatsoever has been placed by the respondents to show that the petitioner was issued notice of hearing of the appeal and that in spite of service of notice, he failed to appear. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1, who shall consider and dispose of the appeal afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner. Till such exercise is undertaken, status quo as regards possession, granted by this Court, shall continue. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA, J Dated: 18th March, 2010 KSR