The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27938 of 2011 Date: 1st November, 2011 Between: Jangala Viswanadham ..... Petitioner and 1.The Government of A.P., rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept (LTR-2), Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.2: ----- The Court made the following : O R D E R: Feeling aggrieved by letter No.9986/LTR.2/2006, dated 21-09-2011, of respondent No.1, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner suffered an order of eviction under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas (Land Transfer) Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. Questioning the said order, the petitioner and his mother, who was alive at that time, filed a revision petition before respondent No.1. A notice of hearing was received by the petitioner wherein it was informed that the revision petition was posted for hearing on 27-08-2011 at 4.30 pm., and the petitioner was asked to attend the hearing along with relevant material. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has approached his Counsel at Hyderabad with the notice and that as his Counsel was suffering from fever, he was advised by his Counsel to attend the hearing and request for an adjournment. The petitioner further pleaded that, accordingly, he has attended the hearing before respondent No.1 and handed over a representation, made in writing, requesting for an adjournment in view of the ill health of his lawyer. The petitioner has, however, received the impugned notice wherein it is informed by respondent No.1 that the revision petition was heard on 27-08-2011 in the chambers of the Minister (Tribal Welfare), during which both the parties were present. The petitioner was requested to furnish the original documents, as proof of evidence and in support of his claim and rights over the subject land, within 15 days. The petitioner felt partly aggrieved by this communication to the extent it relates to the information that the case was heard on 27-08- 2011. As noted above, the specific case of the petitioner is that he was present before respondent No.1 on 27- 08-2011, made a request for an adjournment as his Counsel was ill and submitted a written representation in this regard. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate direction to respondent No.1 to hear his Counsel before disposing of the revision petition filed by him. No counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to put respondent No.2 on notice. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, representing respondent No.1, on instructions, submitted that the revision petition is yet to be disposed of by respondent No.1 as it is awaiting filing of documents by the petitioner. As respondent No.1 failed to controvert the plea of the petitioner that hearing has not taken place on 27-08- 2011, this Court is prepared to accept the plea of the petitioner in this regard. No prejudice will be caused to respondent No.2, if the case is heard, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions through his lawyer, before the revision petition is disposed of. Such a course would, in fact, help respondent No.1 to arrive at proper and correct conclusions while adjudicating the revision petition filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to issue a fresh hearing notice to the petitioner, his Counsel- Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, respondent No.2 and his Counsel, if any, and dispose of the revision petition after hearing both the parties. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, WPMP.No.34457 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Red9dy, J) 1st November, 2011 LUR