( 1 ) THE petitioners challenge the order, dated 08-02-1999, passed by the first respondent dismissing the appeal preferred against orders passed by the second respondent, dated 19-03-1990, conferring occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 to 11l. ( 2 ) ONE Smt. Sonabai was the Inamdar of various extents of land situated at Bekkem village of the erstwhile Kollapur Mandal of mahboobnagar District. Two such items are lands in Survey Nos. 316 and 319, admeasuring Ac. 19. 17 gts. and Ac. 18. 33 gts. respectively. The corresponding old Survey nos. for these tw6 items are 459/2a and 459/2b. ( 3 ) THE ancestors of respondents 3 to 11 filed an application before the second respondent, claiming occupancy rights under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act. After issuing notice to the affected parties and conducting enquiry, the second respondent passed an order dated 04-03-1978 conferring occupancy rights on p. Gurusingh, Chinnabalaram Singh and narayan Singh. Three appeals came to be filed by three different sets of persons against this order before the 1st respondent. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order dated 04-03-1978, and remanding the matter for fresh consideration to the second respondent. ( 4 ) AFTER remand, the second respondent took up the matter. The notices issued by him were served on some of the parties and it could not be served on others. So far as the predecessor in title of the petitioner is concerned, he received the notice and he engaged an advocate on 17-02-1990. The second respondent got published a general notice ina local weekly by name Nirmanam fixing a date of hearing on 17-03-1990. On that date, except the counsel for the respondents 3 to 11, none appeared. The second respondent proceeded to decide the matter and pronounced an order on 19-03-1990 conferring the occupancy rights on the respondents 3 to 11. ( 5 ) ONCE again three sets of appeals came to be filed. One such appeal was preferred by the petitioners, being case No. B2/20/90. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were not put on notice by the second respondent before he proceeded to decide the matter. They have also urged several contentions on the merits such as, that the kasrapahani disclosed the name of the original Inamdar alone and that no other persons were shown as being in occupation of the land. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were not put on notice by the second respondent before he proceeded to decide the matter. They have also urged several contentions on the merits such as, that the kasrapahani disclosed the name of the original Inamdar alone and that no other persons were shown as being in occupation of the land. The first respondent dismissed the appeal. ( 6 ) THE petitioners contend that after the matter was remanded by the first respondent in the earlier round of litigation, the second respondent did not ensure service of notice of hearing on the affected parties. According to them, publication of a general notice in an unknown magazine or weekly cannot be said to be an effective service of notice. The petitioners contend that where such valuable rights are involved; the second respondent ought to have taken steps to serve notice, at least on those parties who are represented by advocates or otherwise. They also contend that the appellate authority did not consider the vital aspect as to whether there was an effective service of notice or intimation of date of hearing by the second respondent. ( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 3 to 11, it is stated that the second respondent has taken all possible measures to ensure that proper intimation is given to the affected parties. It is their case that the writ petitioners did not choose to participate in the proceedings before the second respondent even after being aware of the same. They referred to various proceedings, such as decrees in civil suits, orders passed by the revenue authorities from time to time in support of their contention that they have been in possession of the land at the relevant point of time. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 11 have made submissions on almost of the lines indicated in the respective pleadings. The learned Government Pleader for revenue submits that since the second respondent got published a notice of general intimation to all the parties, there was no legal infirmity in the impugned orders. It is also his case that the appellate authority has considered the records of the proceedings, and was satisfied as to the claim of the respondents 3 to 11. It is also his case that the appellate authority has considered the records of the proceedings, and was satisfied as to the claim of the respondents 3 to 11. ( 9 ) THE main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that, though they were represented through a counsel, they were not issued any notice nor intimated the date of hearing by the second respondent. If what is stated by them is true, it constitutes a serious infirmity and irregularity in the proceedings, particularly, having regard to the fact that rights of individuals in respect of vast land property are involved. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the second respondent has put the petitioner or their counsel on notice as to the date of hearing. ( 10 ) FROM a perusal of the order passed by the second respondent, it is evident that some of the parties before himhave filed vakalat on receipt of notices in the matter and some others remained ex parte. It is not denied that the predecessor of the petitioners was represented through an advocate. So far as the mode of intimation of date of hearing is concerned, the second respondent has observed as under: as such to avoid future complications with regard to service of notices to all the interested persons, a general notice was got published in Nirmanam Dist. weekly paper to attend this office on 17-03-1990 and no body turned up as they are made ex parte. ( 11 ) EXCEPT this, the second respondent did not take any other step to intimate the date of hearing. Having engaged an advocate the petitioners or their predecessors are not expected to await the publication in any magazine to note the date of hearing, before the second respondent. The very purpose of engaging an advocate before the second respondent was to ensure that the communications as regards the date of hearing, etc. are forwarded to him. Intimation of date of hearing constitutes an importantstep in any judicial orquasi-judicial proceedings. In the absence of such intimation, the very purpose of engaging advocates comes to be defeated. The question as to whether the magazine or newspaper in which the notice was said to have been published had adequate circulation is different. are forwarded to him. Intimation of date of hearing constitutes an importantstep in any judicial orquasi-judicial proceedings. In the absence of such intimation, the very purpose of engaging advocates comes to be defeated. The question as to whether the magazine or newspaper in which the notice was said to have been published had adequate circulation is different. The publication in the magazine can be said to be an effective service, so far as the parties who were served with the notice, but did not choose to appear in person or through advocate. The same cannot be treated as a notice so far as the parties who are represented through advocates are concerned. ( 12 ) WHEN this aspect was specifically canvassed before the first respondent, he did nothing more than to refer to factum of publication of such notice. This Court is satisfied that the second respondent did not intimate the date of hearing to the petitioners or their predecessors in title. The proceedings are, therefore naturally vitiated from the point of view of the petitioners. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 11 had made several submissions, touching on the merits of the matter. Since this court is convinced that the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity by the second respondent, it is not necessary to discuss the matter on merits. Any such discussion is likely to have its impact on the adjudication that is required to be undertaken by the second respondent. ( 14 ) IT is stated that the revenue divisions have since been reconstituted and the lands in question, fall within the revenue division of Wanaparthy. The Revenue Divisional officer, Wanaparthy, shall pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded by respondents 1 and 2. ( 15 ) HENCE the writ petition is allowed. The orders, dated 19-03-1990, passed by the second respondent and the one, dated 08-02-1999, passed by the first respondent, are set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration and disposal by the revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy. He shall issue notice of hearing to all the affected parties and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.