HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.No.493 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the 6th respondent-Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, dated 08.08.2008 dismissing the Appeal No.F1/IA-08/2006 filed by the appellant, who is the revision petitioner herein. Brief facts of the case are that on an application filed by the respondents 1 to 5, who are claiming to be the protected tenants, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar, after holding an enquiry, passed an order on 15.11.1988 holding that the respondents 1 to 5 are protected tenants. According to the revision petitioner, he is not aware of any such order and the moment he came to know of the said order, he filed an appeal under Section 90 (1) of the A.P. (Telangana) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 against the said order before the 6th respondent-Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, with a petition to condone the delay of 17 years 10 months. However, the 6th respondent-Joint Collector dismissed the appeal by an order dated 08.08.2008 holding that there is no sufficient cause to condone the said delay. It is against this order the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the proceedings dated 15.11.1988 were passed behind the back of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not a party to the said proceedings and as such he had no occasion as to what had happened before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar. He further submits that it is only after filing of the suits being O.S.Nos.83 of 2000 and 215 of 2000 by the 1st respondent against the petitioner herein before Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, he came to know of the said proceedings and thereafter he filed the appeal with a petition to condone the delay in question. Learned Counsel for respondents, while supporting the order of the 6th respondent-Joint Collector, contended that it is only after dismissal of the aforesaid suits, the revision petitioner has chosen to prefer the appeal before the 6th respondent-Joint Collector and since there is abnormal delay in filing the appeal, the order of the 6th respondent-Joint Collector is perfectly justified and it needs no interference. Admittedly, the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer holding that the respondents 1 to 5 are protected tenants was passed on 15.11.1988 and the present appeal has been filed in the year 2006. Hence, there is abnormal delay in filing the appeal by the revision petitioner. But it should be remembered that substantive rights are involved in the matter. The revision petitioner is claiming to be the protected tenant, whereas the Mandal Revenue Officer has given a finding that respondents 1 to 5 are the protected tenants. In fact, the revision petitioner was not a party before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar. It is only at the instance of the respondents, the Mandal Revenue Officer held an enquiry and gave a finding that the respondents are protected tenants. When once the revision petitioner is claiming that he is the protected tenant, in my considered view, the Joint Collector ought to have afforded adequate opportunity to him to prove his claim that he is a protected tenant and he ought not to have dismissed his appeal on the ground of delay. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2008 is set aside and the delay is condoned. The 6th respondent-Joint Collector is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the revision petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. No order as to costs. ______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 17-03-2010 Gsn.