::1:: APHC010171842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8881/2025 Between: Pratap C Joisher ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D S SIVADARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8881/2025 This Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D. S. Siva Darshan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 2. In compliance of the orders of this Court dated 09.04.2025, the 3rd Respondent appeared and offered his unconditional apology for drafting such an impugned order which is without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled proposition of law. Hence, in view of express apology offered by the 3rd respondent, the presence of 3rd respondent is hereby dispensed with until further orders. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 15.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent is illegal and contrary to law and settled proposition of administration of law and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the impugned notice dated 15.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent is without jurisdiction as the 3rd respondent acted as a prosecutor and further assumed to act as Judge by declaring the subject ::3:: documents as fabricated documents. He further asserts that it is settled proposition of law that the Executive Authority like 3rd respondent cannot act as a prosecutor or an arbitrator or as a judge and also as an executing authority. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside in limini. 4. It is further case of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that neither any proceedings nor any claim are pending before the 3rd respondent to exercising power on administrative grounds for consideration and to pass an impugned order / notice dated 15.03.2025 and further contended that there was no justification for passing the order in the absence of any claim, complaint, or pending proceedings before the 3rd respondent. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the impugned order in the form of notice was issued directing the Petitioner to submit detailed explanation to substantiate his rights in respect of the subject property. She further submits that since the 3rd respondent already observed the status of documents and nature of the documents, therefore after holding about the nature and status of the documents and coming to a conclusion that the documents on which ::4:: the petitioner relying upon are fabricated or not genuine, again issuing notice and calling explanation should not be warranted. 6. Considering the submission made by both the counsel and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and also grave finding made by the Executive Authority as a judge cannot be permitted, in the eye of law. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that since no proceedings or claim pending before the 3rd Respondent, the issuance of impugned notice by exercising suo moto power which was not conferred upon the 3rd respondent is per se illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order / notice dated 15.03.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt: 22.04.2025 krk ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 70 WRIT PETITION NO: 8881/2025 22.04.2025 krk