K Sarojini Devi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1115 AP

                                  1




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
            WRIT PETITION No.14705 of 2020
ORDER :

The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

"....to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to or connected with the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide R.Dis.Rc.No.2017/2014-E2, dated 10.06.2016 reversing the order passed by the 4th respondent in Rc.No.2798/2002/A, dated 15.02.2003 and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide Govt. Memo No.23021/88/2017- Assn.IV-REV, dated 21.11.2019 and quash or set aside the same, as the said orders are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper."

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and all the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

The essential submission made by Sri N.Subba Rao,

learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the impugned order

dated 21.11.2019 is totally bereft of reasons and that the 1st

respondent mechanically confirmed the order of the Joint

Collector, Guntur, without noticing any of the facts or the legal

issues raised . He points out that a reading of the order would

clearly disclose that there are no reasons. It is his contention

that one of the issues raised by the petitioners is about the

failure of the Joint Collector to see that the municipal

authorities are not a party in the revision before him but still a

direction was issued to the municipal authorities in the said

order. Learned counsel also points out that they have raised

various other issues in the course of their submissions

including the suits that were filed and the orders that were

passed therein. He also submits that the issue of inordinate

delay that was raised was also not considered. He drew the

attention of this Court to the orders dated 15.02.2003,

10.06.2016, 11.11.2019 to justify his argument that the orders

passed are totally incorrect and the factual and legal pleas and

both were not considered. The grounds which are raised in the

writ petition were also highlighted by the learned counsel.

In reply to this the respondent counsel including the

learned Government Pleader for assignment, the learned

counsel for the unofficial respondents relied upon the contents

of counters to argue that the orders passed are correct and do

not merit or warrant any inference. Each of the learned

counsels took pains to explain why the order passed is correct

in their opinion. Case law was also relied upon by the learned

counsel for the respondents including the judgment in 2010 4

ALD 358. The issue of locus is also raised by Sri Balaji, learned

counsel for the 7th respondent. Questions of fact on law is also

argued on length including the fact of the road of VPTC plan

etc.

After hearing the submission of the learned counsel this

court notices the first issue that arises for consideration in this

case is about the proceedings of the RDO, dated 15.02.2003.

By this order the MRO was directed to resume the land of 10

cents of TS No. 1690/11, which is under the illegal occupation

by the unofficial respondents by removing the super structures

etc., thereon. This was challenged before the Joint Collector,

who passed orders dated 10.07.2016. The issue of delay was

also raised before the Joint Collector. No reasons, in the

opinion of this Court, are given for the condonation of the delay.

Even a perusal of the order that is ultimately discussed and

delivered does not contain any discussion as to why the Joint

Collector came to the conclusions that he reached. The

passage in the conclusion part of order does not in fact discuss

the facts or the law. Apart from that a direction is issued to

the Municipal Corporation Guntur. It is also held that the

municipal authorities failed to convince of the pressing need

for the formation of the road. As rightly pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioners in the Appeal before the

Joint Collector only the RDO is the respondent and the

municipal authorities are not before him. It is not clear how

the Joint Collector came to the conclusion that the

municipality authorities failed to convince the pressing need

for the formation of a road. Further direction that if the land

is required it should be acquired is also therefore not correct.

Coming to the final impugned order of 21.11.2019, this Court

also notices that it suffers from very same vices. In paragraph

6 the grounds of appeal are considered, the written argument

submitted by the appellants are considered. Thereafter, in

paragraph 7 the orders of the Hon'ble High Court that are

produced are mentioned but they were not taken into

consideration because in the opinion of the Secretary they are

not helpful to the parties. The conclusions are in paragraphs

8 and 9. Absolutely no reasons are given why and how the

conclusions are arrived at.

Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in

the narration of the respective cases of the parties, the

Secretary to the Government noticed the judgment in OS

No.192 of 2003, the Appeal No.169 of 2011 and also SA No.33

of 2013. The earlier Writ Petitions were also discussed. In the

opinion of this Court the submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners for all these orders/judgments

should have been discussed apart from the factual aspects is

correct.

At this point of time, this Court is not going into the

respective merits or demerits of the contentions. On the very

preliminary point of lack of reasons and non-application of

mind, this Court is of the opinion that an order has to be set

aside. Implications of various issues raised, the issue of

limitation etc., are matters that should have been discussed

and decided.

Brushing aside all these issues and in particular the

judgments of the Courts and the High Court on the ground that

they did not aid/help the case of the parties is totally incorrect

in the opinion of this Court. Simply saying that these

judgments are in no way helpful to both the parties is an

absolutely wrong finding. Time and again the highest courts

of the land have stated that every order which is passed by a

quasi-judicial authority like the present respondent No.1

should be on merits and should be a reasoned order. Reasons

provide the link between the issues raised and the conclusions.

This is a basic aspect of the rule of law. The party would know

why his case is accepted or rejected. This would also enable

the appellate/revisional authorities, the superior Courts to

decide if the conclusions are correct or not. In the absence of

any reason neither this Court nor any other Court can examine

the correctness of the findings. The law is too well settled to be

repeated again and again, Despite the high office held by some

of these officers it is noticed that many of the orders are being

passed without reasons and any application of mind resulting

in interference by the Constitutional Courts thus causing

overall delay. At least a brief discussion of the facts and the

law would have helped this Court to appreciate the

conclusions. The lack of any such details makes it clear that

only one order can be passed in this case - that is to set aside

the impugned order dated 21.11.2019 and direct the 1 st

respondent to conduct a denovo enquiry into the petitioners'

issue and pass a reasoned speaking order considering all the

issues, factual and legal that are raised. While it is true that a

bureaucrat while exercising quasi-judicial power is not

expected to write a long and detailed judgment like in a Judge

in a Court of law, but at least a brief discussion of the issues

raised, discussion of the same leading to conclusions based

upon the same is expected.

In view of the long history of dispute of this case and as

this Court is setting aside the order dated 21.11.2018 with a

direction to consider the matter afresh this Court is not

entering into the other legal and factual issues which were

argued at length by all the learned counsels appearing for the

parties. Any opinion expressed by this Court on the legal and

factual issues raised would amount to prejudging the issue.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the 1st

respondent to consider the revision filed by petitioners afresh

by giving notice to all the concerned parties. If the parties so

desire they should be given an opportunity to appear and argue

in person or through the counsel of their choice. They can also

submit a written brief if they so desire. Needless to say the

order passed should be a reasoned order. However, it is made

clear that the entire exercise should be completed within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. All the parties are directed to adhere to the time limit

fixed and cooperate in the disposal of the matter. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date:03.03.2022 Ssv