Madala Nageswara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2017 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2017 AP
Judgement Date : 17 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Madala Nageswara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 June, 2021

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

               WRIT PETITION NO.11212 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 action of 4th
      respondent to reject the petitioner's applications for mutation

of the petitioner's name in revenue records to an extent of Ac.4-58 cents in S.No.1447/1 situated in Ponguru Village, Ponguru Gram Panchayat, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without conducting any enquiry, without following the procedure laid down under Rules 6, 7, 8 and 9 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to set aside the application number ADLC012007788586 and conduct enquiry under Rules 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules 1989 for the above mentioned subject land".

2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner

inherited the subject property of dry land admeasuring Ac.10-

00 cents in S.Nos.1385 and 1447/1 and dry land admeasuring

Ac.6-45 cents in S.No.899-2, totalling to Ac.16-45 cents situated

in Ponguru Village, Ponguru Gram Panchayat, Marripadu

Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Out of love and affection on

11.07.2014 father of the petitioner by name Madala Subba Rao

executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner vide

document bearing No.5932/2014 and 6969/2014 registered

with the Joint Sub Registrar's office, Nellore. The petitioner

made an application to the 3rd respondent to mutate his name

in the revenue records through online (Mee-Seva) and for

issuance of pattadar pass books. But the application of the

petitioner bearing No. ADLC012007788586 was rejected as per

column meant for 'status and remarks'. Therefore, the order of

rejection is now challenged in this writ petition on the ground

that the administrative authorities must have passed a reasoned

order since it is an appealable order under the provisions of the

Act, but no such reasoned order is passed except the order

impugned in the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner sought to

set aside the impugned order and requested to issue a direction

to respondent No.4.

3. During hearing Sri G.Kondala Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition,

whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

submitted that the 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

authority.

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 authority 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

(2010) 4 SCC 785

column of the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 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 reason recorded in the