IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.19944 of 1997 Dated: 25-01-2007 Between: 1. Shaik Saleem, s/o Imam Saheb, aged about 41 years, agriculture, r/o Lankapalli village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District and 3 others. ... Petitioners and 1. The Joint Collector, Khammam and 2 others. ... Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to set aside the order of the ﬁrst respondent passed in Proceedings No.B4/4719/97, dated 18-05-1997 and consequently to direct ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the revision petition of petitioners ﬁled against the orders of third respondent, dated 31-03-1995. 2. It is the case of petitioners that their father was assigned an agricultural land and was granted assigned patta in an extent of Ac.1-02 guntas in Survey No.258/1 situated at Lankapalli village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District. According to petitioners as respondent Nos.4 and 5 occupied the said land illegally, a petition seeking restoration of land was ﬁled before third respondent and the same was allowed vide Proceedings in Rc.No.B/1727/92, dated 10-03-1993. As against the said orders, it appears respondents 4 and 5 preferred an appeal and the appellate authority i.e. the second respondent herein without notice to petitioners, set aside the order dated 10-03-1993 passed by the third respondent, vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.B1/5314/93, dated 31-08-1995. Coming to know of the said order, petitioners ﬁled a revision before the ﬁrst respondent herein, but as there was delay of 512 days, they ﬁled a petition to condone the delay, but, however, the ﬁrst respondent refused to condone the delay and dismissed the application and hence, this writ petition. 3. No counter affidavit is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Inasmuch as the orders passed by the second respondent on 31-08-1995 is without notice to the petitioners and behind their back, this Court is of the view that the revisional authority i.e. the ﬁrst petitioner herein should have entertained the revision by condoning the said delay. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dismissing the petition to condone the delay in ﬁling the revision is set aside. The ﬁrst respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the revision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Dt.25-01-2007 GLV