THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3747 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was issued pattadar pass books by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapalli, the 3rd respondent herein, in respect of 2 acres of land in survey Nos.578, 579/3 and 4 of Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. Aggrieved thereby, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, the 2nd respondent herein. Through a memo issued in November, 2004, the 2nd respondent refused to entertain the appeal. The 5th respondent pursued the matter once again. The appeal was entertained and through order, dated 30.07.2007, the 2nd respondent directed cancellation of entries made and pattadar pass books issued, in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the land, referred to above. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the 2nd respondent has refused to entertain the appeal in the year 2004, he has no power or jurisdiction to entertain it once again. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, submit that refusal to entertain the appeal in the year 2004 was, on account of pendency of the suits and once the suits were disposed of, the appeal was entertained and disposed of. The 5th respondent presented the appeal against the proceedings through which the entries were made in favour of and pattadar pass books were issued to, the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. The memo issued by the 2nd respondent reads as under: “The petitioner has not adduced any evidence regarding issue of PPBs to the respondents and filed petition by hiding the fact of pendency of several suits in respect of the lands mentioned in the petition. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to approach the proper forum for the redressal of his grievance after the disposal of the suit.” From this, it becomes clear that the 2nd respondent refused to entertain the appeal, on the ground that the suits were pending. It was not a case where the appeal was dismissed, on merits. The 5th respondent had waited, till the suits are disposed of, and thereafter, approached the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal is barred or that it was entertained for the second time. Though there was no legal infirmity in entertaining the appeal, the 2nd respondent had committed procedural irregularities. In the impugned order, dated 30.07.2007, the 2nd respondent has undertaken extensive discussion, in relation to the suits and the merits of the matter. However, the record does not disclose that the petitioners were issued any notice of hearing at all. When the pattadar pass book issued in favour of the petitioner and the entries made in her favour are directed to be cancelled, it is fundamental that a notice ought to have been issued to her. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 30.07.2007, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, after issuing notice of hearing to all the concerned parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:16.03.2009. GJ