JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court challenging the order dated 9.10.2015 by which ex parte order passed in appeal has been recalled. It is claimed that the petitioner had purchased certain land through a sale deed executed by a Power of Attorney Holder on 2.9.2011. By virtue of the aforesaid sale deed the petitioner applied for mutation under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act which application was allowed by order dated 7.10.2011 and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record. 3. It appears that the respondent thereafter filed an application for restoration with certain delay which was rejected on account of delay on 20.1.2014. Then it appears that the respondent filed an appeal against the original order dated 7.10.2011 passed under Section 34 of the Act. That appeal was rejected on merits on 9.10.2014. But it appears that the said appeal of the respondent was decided ex parte as the respondent did not appear before the appellate authority in spite of numerous opportunities granted to him. Thereafter, recall application was moved before the appellate authority for recalling the order dated 9.10.2014. Upon this recall application earlier order passed in appeal has now been recalled by order dated 8.1.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appeal was of the respondent and he himself was not appearing before the appellate authority and, therefore, the appellate authority after perusing the record has recorded a finding that the respondent has no right to challenge the mutation proceedings and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, upon an application filed by the respondent for recalling the appellate order, the petitioner ought to have been given notice but without any notice the appellate order has been recalled, which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The order of mutation has already been passed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order of mutation, which appeal was dismissed. Now by recall application the appellate order has been recalled. 7. In my view, the mutation is already in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. 6. The order of mutation has already been passed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order of mutation, which appeal was dismissed. Now by recall application the appellate order has been recalled. 7. In my view, the mutation is already in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. As such, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to appear before the appellate court, which may consider the claim of both sides and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before it. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above order.