Somanaboina Prabhakar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3070 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3070 AP
Judgement Date : 17 August, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Somanaboina Prabhakar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 August, 2021

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION NO.17270 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the online rejection order, dated 24.06.2021 issued by the 5th respondent on the petitioner‟s Mee Seva Application No.RMU012106854054, dated 16.06.2021 submitted for issuing Pattadar pass book-cum-title deed and for mutation of petitioner‟s name in all online web land revenue records including Adangal/Pahanies, 1B Register and Record of Rights connected to petitioner‟s landed properties of Ac.4.00 cents out of Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.4-1 situated in Rudra Bharathipeta, Chinnamachupalle Village, Chennur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 5th respondent to issue pattadar pass book-cum-title deed and mutate petitioner‟s name in all online web land revenue records including Adangal/Pahanies, 1B register and Record of Rights in petitioner‟s favour in respect of petitioners land and pass such other order".

2. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that the petitioners‟

father by name Somanaboina Narasimhulu was an ex-serviceman,

the Government assigned land in Sy.No.4-1 admeasuring

Ac.5.00 cents situated in Bharathipeta Fileds, Chinnamanchupalle

Village, Chennur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in his favour in the

year 1969 under DKT Patta and since then he was in continuous

possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption

from anybody till his death. During the life time of father of

petitioners, he sold the land in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents out of

Ac.5.00 cents on 22.04.1986 to one Lakshmi Reddy and again he sold the land in an extent of ac.0.50 cents out of ac.5.00 cents on

25.04.1986 to one Lakshmi Devi. The remaining land in an extent

of Ac.4.00 cents out of Ac.5.00 cents was in possession and

enjoyment of the petitioner‟s father. Consequent upon death of

petitioners‟ father, petitioners succeeded the estate of their father

and they applied through Mee Seva Application

No.RMU012106854054, dated 16.06.2021 for issuance of Pattadar

pass book-cum-title deed and for mutation of petitioner‟s name in

all online web land revenue records including Adangal/Pahanies,

1B Register and Record of Rights connected to petitioners‟ land in

an extent of Ac.4.00 cents out of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.4-1,

situated in Chinnamachupalle Village fields, Chennur Mandal,

YSR Kadapa District. But the 5th respondent vide order, dated

16.06.2021 rejected Mee Seva Application No.RMU012106854054,

dated 16.06.2021 submitted by the petitioners without passing

any order and without conducting any enquiry. Hence, this Writ

Petition.

3. During hearing, Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned

counsel for the petitioners 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 5th respondent, since the order passed by the

5th respondent is appealable and requested to issue appropriate

direction to the authorities.

4. Admittedly, an application was made by the petitioners, 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 petitioners placed reliance on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner,

Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing,

Kota Vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers1, 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.

Therefore, the order passed if any without disclosing the reason

1 (2010) 4 SCC 785 for passing such order is illegal and it is difficult for the party to

know the reason for rejection. Apart from that the reason

recorded in the order is guide to the appellate authority or Court