THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.862 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner and certain others were granted ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’), by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, in respect of fairly large extent of land in Jampally Village of Bibinagar Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District, in the year 1978. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 2 to 8 filed an appeal under Section 90 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, the first respondent herein. The petitioner and respondents 9 to 15 figured as respondents in that appeal. Through his order, dated 26.07.1985, the first respondent allowed the appeal. The petitioner states that he was not put on notice in the appeal and that he was not aware of the orders, dated 26.07.1985, till recently and he came to know about the same on 08.09.2008. With these and other relevant contentions, the petitioner filed an application before the first respondent with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 26.07.1985. The first respondent rejected the application through order, dated 24.11.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner approached the first respondent with an application to set aside the order, dated 26.07.1985. It is, no doubt, true that there was substantial delay. However, the question as to whether the period has to be computed from the date of knowledge or the date of order, needs to be examined after issuing notice to the affected parties. The first respondent, however, treated the application of the petitioner as an independent appeal under Section 90 of the Act and dismissed the same on the ground that it was filed beyond 60 days. The impugned order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The application, to set aside an order already passed in an appeal, cannot be treated as an independent appeal. The incumbent, who passed the order, does not appear to have examined this aspect or that she did not have experience in the matters of this nature. The necessity for this Court to issue notice to respondents 2 to 8 would have arisen, had they been issued notice in the proceedings that gave rise to the impugned order. It was passed in limini without either issuing notice to the affected parties or referring to the merits. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to examine the application filed by the petitioner on its own merits and pass appropriate orders thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.01.2009 kdl