Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mannuru Nageswara Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 24 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.16109 OF 2023
Between:
Mannuru Nageswara Reddy, S/o M.Nagireddy,
Aged 66 years, R/o Nagavaram Village & Post,
Chitvel Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Now in
Annamayya District.
... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
A.P.Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Guntur District and two others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.Ramesh Babu
Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of
respondent No.3 in rejecting the application bearing
No.MUT221111033285, dated 11.11.2022 made by the petitioner
seeking mutation of his name in revenue records and to issue
Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed over an extent of Ac.2.66 cents in
Sy.No.285 of Hasthavaram Village, Rajampet Mandal, YSR Kadapa
District, as illegal and arbitrary.
SRS, J
2. Heard Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing
for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner
purchased the property in the auction conducted in E.P.No.36 of
2020 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet. Possession of
the property was delivered to the petitioner as per orders in E.P.No.6
of 2023 in O.S.No.52 of 2018 dated 16.05.2023 on the file of the
Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet. In view of the above, the petitioner
made application seeking mutation and to issue Pattadar Passbook
and Title Deed. However, the said application was rejected with an
endorsement 'rejected with SLA'.
4. When this Court posed a question to the learned Assistant
Government Pleader as to any separate order is passed by
respondent No.3, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
pleaded that no separate order was passed.
5. As seen from the Exhibit P.1, no order much less a reasoned
was passed by respondent No.3. The order passed by quasi-judicial
order must be supported by reasons.
SRS, J
6. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India1 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while referring to the judgment in Siemens Engineering &
Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case, it is held as follows:
"It is now settled law that where an authority makes
an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must
record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every
quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. If
courts of law are to be replaced by administrative
authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of
cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they
may have to be so replaced, it is essential that
administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair
and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by
their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons
in support of the orders made by them. Then along
administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-
judicial function will be able to justify their existence and
carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in
the adjudicatory process. The 1 1990(4) SCC 594 4 rule
requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like
the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of
natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial
process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit
and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy
the requirement of law".
7. At Para 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows.
"Reasons, when recorded by an administrative
authority in an order passed by its while exercising quasi-
judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of
its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority.
But the other considerations, referred to above, which
have also weighed with this Court in holding that an
1990(4) SCC 594
SRS, J
administrative authority must record reasons for its
decision, are of no less significance. These considerations
show that the recording of reasons by an administrative
authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes
chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness
in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would
apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be
confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision
or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the
requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the
decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-
judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the
decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It
may, however, be added that it is not required that the
reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a
Court law. The extent and nature of the reasons would
depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is
necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as
to indicate that the authority has given due consideration
to the points in controversy. The need for recording of
reasons is greater in a case where the 5 order is passed at
the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it
affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if
the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the
reasons contained in the order under challenge".
8. As seen from the material available on record, the petitioner filed
suit in O.S.No.52 of 2018 and the suit was decreed. The petitioner filed
E.P.No.36 of 2020. The Executing Court itself executed sale deed and
the same was registered. Without considering any of these aspects,
respondent No.3 passed the order without assigning any reasons.
Hence, the endorsement dated 11.11.2022 in respect of application
No.MUT221111033285 is liable to be set aside.
SRS, J
9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition
is allowed by setting aside the rejection endorsement dated 11.11.2022
against application No.MUT221111033285. The matter is remitted to
respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 shall consider the application
objectively, if necessary, by providing opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within eight (08)
weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 24.06.2024
TVN
SRS, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.16109 OF 2023
Date : 24.06.2024
TVN
