Makina Surya Narayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2914 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2914 AP
Judgement Date : 6 August, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Makina Surya Narayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 August, 2021

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 WRIT PETITION No.16236 OF 2021
ORDER:-


      This     petition      is   filed    under        Article     226    of   the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

   "... to issue an order/direction or a writ more particularly one in the
   nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th Respondent

Tahsildar in deleting the names of petitioner's father i.e., Makina Satyanarayana Satyampathrudu and his paternal aunt Pilla Lakshminarasamma as pattadars of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac 1-32 cents in Survey No.85/3 Ac 0-88 cents in Survey No.87/10; Ac 0-82 cents in Survey No.88/19 and Ac 1-06 cents in Survey No.92/8 total extent of Ac 4-08 cents situated at Ramavaram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and incorporating the names of un- official respondents herein as pattadars of the above lands and further action of 4th Respondent Tahsildar in rejecting the Online Applications submitted by the petitioner though online vide Receipts Dated 21.01.2021 and 03.02.2021 refusing to issue Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed by recording the petitioner's name as pattadar of the above lands, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void beside violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the same directing the Respondent Authorities herein to issue Pattadar Pass Book Title Deed by recording the name of the petitioner as pattadar of the above lands and to pass such other orders...."

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father by

name Makena Satyam Pathrudu and paternal aunt Pilla

Koteswaramma were the pattadars of the subject land and

their names have been recorded in the SFA Register, but

taking advantage of the petitioners absence from the village

for a considerable period, the respondents deleted the names

of the pattadars and recorded the names of the respondents

as pattadars. The petitioner made a request through online

on 21.01.2021 to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to issue

pattadar passbook and title deed by recording his name as

pattadar of the subject land. However, the Tahsildar rejected

the petitioner's request through Online without issuing any

notice. As per the advice of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, the

petitioner once again applied through Online on 03.02.2021,

but the same was also rejected by the 4th respondent-

Tahsildar once again dated 23.03.2021. Thereafter, the

petitioner made a detailed representation dated 24.04.2021 to

the 4th respondent by enclosing the Xerox copies of extracts

from the Settlement fair Adangal in respect of the above lands

showing his father and his sister PIlla Lakshminarasamma as

pattadars. But the 4th respondent has not taken any action

till date. Hence, the present writ petition requested to issue a

direction to the 4th respondent.

3. During hearing Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,

learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions

urged in the petition, whereas learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue submitted that reasoned order is

required to be passed by the 4th respondent, since the order

passed by the 4th respondent is appealable and requested to

issue appropriate direction to the authorities.

4. Admittedly, an application was made by the

petitioner, the same was rejected, but no reason was assigned

in the order impugned in the writ petition except mentioning

as 'rejected' in the columns meant for 'status' and 'remarks'.

Therefore, no reason is assigned enabling the petitioner to

prefer an appeal by raising specific grounds.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance

on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant

Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works

Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers 1

wherein it is held as follows:-

"13. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders".

6. The main requirement to sustain the order passed

by any administrative order or an order passed by quasi-

judicial authority is the reasoning, but in the present case,

except submitting a proforma filling the blanks, no reason is

assigned for the proposed action, except recommend/reject,

no reason is disclosed in the order and it is understandable to

any individual, except the result of rejection/recommendation

in column No.3 of the order impugned in this Writ Petition.

(2010) 4 SCC 785

Therefore, the order passed if any without disclosing the

reason for passing such order is illegal and it is difficult for

the party to know the reason for rejection. Apart from that the