Duvvuru Mohana Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2035 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2035 AP
Judgement Date : 18 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Duvvuru Mohana Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 June, 2021

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION NO.11276 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 3rd respondent to reject the petitioner's application

for rectification of petitioner's name in 1-B revenue records in an extent of Ac.1-13 cents in Sy.No.367-8 of Mutyalapadu Village, Chillakuru 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 righst 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 and 3rd respondents to set aside the rejection application No.ADLC012107854788, dated 29-03-2021 and conduct enquiry under Rules mentioned above in connection with the application No. ADLC012107854788 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 from his forefathers to

an extent of Ac.0.87 cents in Sy.No.148-2B and an extent of

Ac.1.13 cents in Sy.No.368-8 of Mutyalapadu Village, Chillakuru

Mandal. When the petitioner submitted the title deeds, the bank

authorities found that there was a difference of number between

the online entries and physical pass book. In online the survey

numbers shows as 151-2 and where as in title deeds it was shown

as 151-A. The petitioner made an application to the 3rd respondent

for rectification of the mistake i.e., to change the survey number in

the pass book as 151-2. The 3rd respondent conducted enquiry as

per rules and conformed that the petitioner got Ac.0.76 cents in

Sy.No.151-2. But the application of the petitioner bearing No.

APLC012107854788 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.3.

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 3rd

respondent, since the order passed by the 3rd 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-