Madala Nageswara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2033 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2033 AP
Judgement Date : 18 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Madala Nageswara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 June, 2021

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

               WRIT PETITION NO.11281 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
      the 4th respondent to reject the petitioner's application for

rectification of petitioner's name in revenue records in an extent of Ac.6-45 cents in Sy.No.899-2 of 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 and without pronouncing speaking order under Rule 9(i) and 9(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violative Constitutional right of the petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd to 4th respondents to set aside the rejection application No.ADLC012007788666 and conduct enquiry under Rules mentioned above in connection with the application No. ADLC012007788666 by following due process of law, and pass such other order or orders".

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

petitioner inherited the schedule property of dry land admeasuring

Ac.10-00 cents in S.No.1385 and 1447/1, dry land admeasuring

Ac.6-45 cents in S.No.899-2, totaling 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. ADLC012007788666 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 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

(2010) 4 SCC 785

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 order is quite