Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Adaka Nagaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 November, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.25406 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 rejection
order, dated 24.01.2019 generated in MeeSeva vide in
application No.APDL011800117049 and Transaction Id
TAAPDL011800117049 by the 2nd Respondent, as arbitrary,
contrary to Section 7 of the A.P. Dotted Lands (Updation in
ReSettlement Register) Act, 2017 and consequently set
aside the same and further direct the 2nd Respondent to
pass orders under section 7 of the A P Dotted Lands
(Updation in ReSettlement Register) Act, 2017 and pass
such other order".
2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that land in
Sy.No.1344/1 admeasuring Ac.5.18 cents, Chenarayunipalli
Village, Markapuram, Prakasam District, originally belonged to
late Polepalli Pullamma, W/o Late Polepalli Chennaiah. Late
Polepalli Pullamma during her life time had executed possessory
sale deed, dated 25.05.1925 in favour of late Murari Nagamma,
W/o Murari Papaiah. One Adaka Peddanna purchased land in
Sy.No.1344/1 admeasuring Ac.5.18 cents, Chennarayunipalli
Village, Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District from late
Murari Nagamma for valid consideration of Rs.9,500/- under
unregistered possessory sale deed, dated 14.09.1974, since then
said Adaka Peddanna, father of petitioner was in possession and
enjoyment of the property, said Adaka Peddanna died intestate
about 25 years ago leaving behind him the petitioner and other
sons. The petitioner submitted online applications through
Meeseva vide application No.APDL011800117049, which was
rejected by the 2nd respondent on 24.01.2019 without stating
any valid reason, which is illegal, arbitrary and requested to
issue appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent as claimed in
the writ petition.
3. During hearing, Sri B.Sesi Bhushan 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 2nd respondent, since the order passed by the
2nd respondent is appealable and requested to issue appropriate
direction to the authorities.
4. Admittedly, several applications were submitted by the
petitioner, the same were 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.
1 (2010) 4 SCC 785
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 rejection, except noting "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
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
either to sustain or to set aside the order. Therefore, the order
impugned in this Writ Petition is totally bereft of any reason
much less satisfactory reason. Hence, it is in contrary to the
principles of natural justice.
7. Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition is declared
as contrary to the law laid down in the judgment referred above,
illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the order is liable to be set
aside. Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition is hereby
set aside while directing respondent No.2 to pass a reasoned
order within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of,
at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications
are closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 03.11.2021
IS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.25406 OF 2021
Date: 03.11.2021
IS
