M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the unsuccessful respondent assailing the order, dated 19.02.2011, of the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, passed in Case No. F2/IA-6/2004. I have heard the submissions of Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and of Sri L. Harish, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. No submissions are made on behalf of the official respondents. I have perused the material record.

2. The facts, which are necessary to be stated as a prelude to this order, in brief, are as follows:

"Aggrieved of the Occupancy Rights Certificate ('ORC, for brevity) issued to the revision petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, vide proceedings, dated 02.09.1989, the fourth respondent herein filed the appeal in case No. F2/1A-6.04, under Section 24(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, only in respect of Ac. 19.27 guntas in Survey No. 44, by claiming rights in the said property but not disputing the other properties in other survey numbers covered by the said Certificate. However, the 4th respondent herein filed the said appeal with some delay and not within the time allowed under law. After the appeal was registered, a note was placed before the Joint Collector/appellate authority that the appeal is filed with a request to condone delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. The Joint Collector by order, dated 30.10.2014, directed for preparation of draft notice to be issued to both the parties and to address a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak, to send the connected records. Subsequently, the matter underwent several adjournments as on most of the occasions the Joint Collector was busy and the case has to be adjourned. Thus, the case was adjourned from time to time till 12.03.2010. On that day, the docket order passed by the Joint Collector reads verbatim as follows:

'Case called. Appellant advocate present, filed and civil suit order adjourned to 01.05.10'.

There is no recording in the said order as to whether the respondent (revision petitioner herein) or his counsel was present or absent and whether or not the notice of the filing of the document and also a copy of the document are served on the respondent. The Subsequent docket order made on 01.05.2010 verbatim reads as follows:

'Case called appellant was present. Respondent absent. (sic)FO.'

The docket order thereafter passed on 19.02.2011 verbatim reads as follows:

'Pronounced Judgment in open Court'.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent therein, that is, the revision petitioner filed this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that admittedly even as per the note file placed before the joint Collector, the appeal was filed with a request to condone the delay of 20 days. The ORC is of the year 1989 and the appeal was filed in the year 2004. How the appellant therein and the office of the Joint Collector arrived at the number of days of delay at 20 days remains unexplained. The Docket sheet copy filed before this Court along with the material papers does not disclose that a formal order was passed condoning even that delay before taking up the appeal for hearing on merits. On a number of occasions, when the counsel for the revision petitioner appeared before the Joint Collector, the case was not taken up and on several other occasions, even when both the parties were absent the case was adjourned; and on some other occasions, the case was adjourned as the Joint Collector was otherwise busy. The case was not taken up for hearing and disposal from the year 2004 till March, 2010; but, suddenly the Joint Collector for reasons best know to him started showing great urgency for disposing of the matter. On 12.03.2010, when the counsel for the appellant therein appeared before the Joint Collector, and made a request to receive on file an order in a civil suit, eve