THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.10064 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the order dated 29-09-2007 passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, the 3rd respondent herein, through which he has set aside an order dated 02-05-2004, passed by the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent. The proceedings arose under A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short the ‘Act’). The petitioner was granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) by the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 02-05-2004 in respect of 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.242, of Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that, when respondents 4 to 8 made an attempt to interfere with his possession over the said plot of land, the petitioner filed O.S.No.1180 of 2007 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and that an order of temporary injunction was passed, in I.A.No.1338 of 2007, on 04-10-2007. In C.M.A.No.890 of 2007, the order is said to have been modified to the one, of status quo, by this Court, while remanding the matter to the trial Court. The petitioner states that, in the course of hearing of the proceedings before the Courts, the respondents 4 to 8 relied upon the impugned order, passed by the 3rd respondent, and he was not at all aware of the proceedings before him. He contends that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice, and cannot be sustained in law. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. As regards the averment of the petitioner, that no notice of hearing was issued to him, in the appeal, filed before the 3rd respondent, it is stated that though notices were dispatched, they did not appear to have been served. On behalf of respondents 4 to 8, it is urged that the 3rd respondent has passed the order, following the judgment of this Court in A.P. Panjabi Sabha, Hyderabad, v. Joint Collector, Hyderabad District[1]. The petitioner was granted ORC, under the Act, in respect of 12 guntas of land, through proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 02-05-2004. Two years thereafter, respondents 4 to 8 seem to have filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent, against the ORC. The 3rd respondent is, no doubt, the Appellate Authority under the Act. He was under obligation to issue notice to the respondents, that figured before him. The allegation of the petitioner, that he was not served with the notice, is not denied. It is fundamental that, person, who is shown as respondent in the proceedings, and against whom any relief is granted, must be given an opportunity of being heard. Once it emerges that the petitioner did not receive any notice, before the 3rd respondent passed the order, the writ petition is deserves to be allowed, by invoking the principles of natural justice. In O.S.No.1180 of 2007, while the petitioner relied upon the ORC issued in his favour, respondents 4 to 8 based their claim on the order, which is hereby set aside. It is better that the suit awaits the disposal of the proceedings, before the 1st respondent. Hence the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, after hearing both the parties. The petitioner shall enter appearance before the 3rd respondent, within four weeks from today, and thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall fix a date of hearing, duly issuing notice thereof, to the counsel for the parties. The further proceedings in O.S.No.1180 of 2007 shall stand stayed, till the disposal of the appeal by the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01-02-2010. KO [1] 2004 (5) ALD 644