Order : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 & 7. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the proceedings of the 4 th respondent calling for the records vide order in D.Dis.No.D2/1731/2018, dated 20.10.2018 and order in D.Dis.No.929/2019/D4, dated 29.01.2020 of the 3 rd respondent and set-aside the same holding that the names of the petitioners shall be continued in the revenue records including the webland records in terms of as existed prior to the above said orders. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein filed the revision before the 3 rd respondent against the orders of the 4 th respondent dated 20.10.2018. The respondent Nos.6 & 7 are the respondents therein. One of the main grounds raised in the said revision was that the 4 th respondent without giving any notice to the parties concerned i.e., the revision petitioners therein and others, passed the above said orders dated 20.10.2018, against which, the said revision was filed. 4. While dealing with the matter on merits of the case, the 3 rd respondent in the above said revision categorically observed that “as seen from the connected records, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram has not issued notices. It seems that he had verified the proposals received from the Tahsildar, B.K.Samudram and connected records received along with the proposals and passed orders without issuing notices, the changes carried out in webland records irregularly as per the wish and will of the Tahsildar, B.K.Samudram without following the due procedure etc., for which the connected mutation/rectification records are not available in Tahsildar Office, B.K.Samudram”. 5. Ultimately, the revisional authority as stated above discussing the matter on other merits going through by the record, directed the Tahsildar to make correction of entries in webland records/ R.O.R. records of Podaralla village of B.K.Samudram mandal and accordingly the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2020. 6. 5. Ultimately, the revisional authority as stated above discussing the matter on other merits going through by the record, directed the Tahsildar to make correction of entries in webland records/ R.O.R. records of Podaralla village of B.K.Samudram mandal and accordingly the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2020. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 & 7 submits that, since the then Tahsildar, B.K.Samudram made online entries without proper enquiry and putting into notice of the applicants therein, the 4 th respondent passed the above said order dated 20.10.2018 in the matter of restoration of old entries in respect of an extent of Ac.27.29 cents in Sy.No.82/3 of Podaralla village, B.K.Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuram Division. Though the 3 rd respondent observed that no notices were issued to the parties concerned by the 4 th respondent, the matter was decided by the 4 th respondent basing upon the records and on irregularity committed by the then Tahsildar. 7. Similarly, the learned Assistant Government Pleader also contends that the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent by way of the above said order dated 29.01.2020 are in detail discussion on merits of the case basing upon the available record and as such the matter need not be remanded due to want of issuance of notices to the parties concerned. 8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the revisional authority categorically found that, no notices were issued to the parties concerned by the 4 th respondent before taking any decision on the merits of the case with regard to the mutation of names of the parties concerned in respect of the subject land. In the interest of justice, the 3 rd respondent ought to have remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the 4 th respondent by issuing notices to all the parties concerned giving due opportunity to make their submissions on merits of the case. 9. In the interest of justice, the 3 rd respondent ought to have remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the 4 th respondent by issuing notices to all the parties concerned giving due opportunity to make their submissions on merits of the case. 9. As the law is very clear on this aspect of principles of natural justice, this court shows its indulgence to interfere with the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent and the 4 th respondent by setting aside the same enabling the 4 th respondent to consider afresh with respect to the merits of the matter for mutation of the names of the parties concerned for the subject land covered under the said proceedings by giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned including the petitioners and the respondent Nos.6 & 7 and all others concerned by issuing proper notices prior to conducting of any enquiry and upon receiving of their submissions in reasonable time and upon consideration of the merits by verifying the records of the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Enabling the 4 th respondent to proceed with the fresh enquiry, the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent dated 29.01.2020 and the proceedings of the 4 th respondent dated 20.10.2018 are set aside by directing all the parties concerned to maintain status quo as on today with respect to the subject land pending disposal of the above said enquiry before the 4 th respondent. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.