THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1740 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners challenge an order dated 22-11-2008 passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, in an appeal filed under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The appeal was presented by the deceased-2nd respondent, and respondents 3 to 8. The relevant facts in brief are as under: The petitioners were granted Occupancy Rights Certificate, (ORC) under the Act, over an extent of 19 acres of land, in Sy.No.57 of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings dated 22-05-1985, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents 2 to 8 filed an appeal against the same, in the year 1998 before the 1st respondent. There was about 13 years of delay. The delay was condoned through an order dated 03-04-1999, by the 1st respondent. Petitioners filed W.P.No.13161 of 1999 before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 19-09-2007. Another appeal was filed by another set of persons, over a different extent of land, as regards of which, the petitioners were granted ORC. Against the similar order passed by the 1st respondent, condoning the delay in that appeal, the petitioners filed W.P.No.13162 of 1999. That writ petition was allowed, on 20-07-2004. After W.P.No.13161 of 1999 was dismissed, the 1st respondent took up the appeal and allowed the same, through the impugned order. The petitioners contend that the 1st respondent was not clear as to the exact matter he was dealing with, and he made reference to the orders in W.P.Nos.13161 and 13162 of 1999, in his order. They allege that the matter was listed for hearing on 01-11-2008, and on that day, all the cases were adjourned to 06-12-2008. The counsel for the petitioners is said to have noted that date, on receiving the information from the office. It, later on, emerged that the instant case alone was taken up on 27-09-2008, and thereafter on 18-10-2008. The petitioners allege that they were not put on notice, about these dates of hearing. According to them, the case was taken up in the absence of the petitioners on 04-11-2008, and thereafter on 15-11-2008, on which date it was reserved for orders. It is also stated that though the order is said to have been dictated on 22-11-2008, it is signed on 23-11-2008, which happens to be a Sunday. The petitioners contend that serious irregularity has taken place, not only in the hearing of the matter, but also as regards mentioning of the relevant facts. The petitioners also contend that though some of the appellants in the appeal before the 1st respondent died, their legal representatives were not brought on record. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7. This is the second time, that the petitioners have approached against the proceedings, that were initiated before the 1st respondent. Initially, they approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the condonation of delay. The writ petition was dismissed. Obviously, in view of the fact that an identical order, condoning the delay was set aside by this Court, the petitioners filed a Review W.P.S.R.No.54254 of 2008. It is not stated that any order of stay of further proceedings in the appeal was granted in the review petition. Be that as it may, the 1st respondent was not clear as to the exact matter, which he was dealing about. The petitioners were granted ORC in respect of 19 acres of land, and two appeals were came to be filed as regards the different parts of land. Both the appeals were presented with the delay of 13 years, when the 1st respondent condoned the delay. Of the two writ petitions filed by the petitioners, against the orders condoning the delay, one was allowed, and the other was dismissed. Obviously, because of the similarity between these two appeals, the 1st respondent mentioned the facts relating to both, but did not notice the perceptible difference. The narration of facts in the impugned order presents a sort of confusion. The petitioners contend that the 2nd petitioner before the 1st respondent died, and though a memo was filed, undertaking to bring the legal representatives on record, such a step was not taken at all. It is alleged that another appellant died, before the appeal was heard and disposed of. This is not disputed. Hence, there is patent irregularity, that vitiates the proceedings. With the death of the appellants, the appeals abate, unless the cause of action is divisible. Serious allegations are made by the petitioners, as regards the dates of hearing. It is alleged that though all the matters were adjourned on 01-11-2008 to 06-12-2008, their case alone was singled out, and subsequently it was posted to different dates, without notice to them. Whatever may be the truth of these allegations, one aspect, that required to be noticed is that, the appeal was reserved for orders on 15-11-2008, and it was pronounced on 22-11-2008. However, it was signed with the date 23-11-2008. Whenever orders are pronounced, the signature of the Authority must be on the same date. If it is signed on a subsequent date, it cannot be said to have been pronounced earlier. This assumes significance, when the matter was reserved for orders. Thus, there are factual and procedural inaccuracies in the entire proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. It shall be ensured that the notice of hearing is served upon the parties; and that the facts in one case are not taken for the other. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.25-02-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO