I APHC010386152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH / AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) •I \V WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI / WRIT PETITION NO: 19612 OF 2025 / Between: Chitteti Ravi Kumar, S/o.Ch.Chengaiah, Aged about 41 years, R/o. 1-65/1 Inkandriga, Krishnapuram village, Renigunta, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of AP, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Tirupathi District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi District. The Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal Tirupathi District. 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the application made by the petitioner for conversion of agriculture land to norr-agriculture land pertaining to subject lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/14, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.306/13, Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.no.306/12, Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.306/11, Ac.0.47 cents in Sy.No.306/10, Ac.0.465 cents in Sy.No.301/9B, Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.301/9A, Ac.0.085 cents in Sy.No.301/8B, Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/17B, Ac.0.07 cents in sy.No.306/15 and Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.no.301/7B totalling to an extent of Ac.2.14 cents situated in Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi district on 09.07.2025 without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to provisions of AP Agricultural land-(conversion for agricultural purposes) Act, 2006 and rules thereunder and consequently set aside the rejection order passed by the respondent authorities by further directing the respondents to take necessary action on the application in terms of Act 6 of 2006. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the rejection orders passed by the respondent authorities on 09.07.2025 and direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner pertaining to subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/14, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.306/13, Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.no.306/12, Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.306/11, Ac.0.47 cents in Sy.No.306/10, Ac.0.465 cents in Sy.No.301/9B, Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.301/9A, Ac.0.085 cents in Sy.No.301/8B, Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/17B, Ac.0.07 cents in sy.No.306/15 and Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.no.301/7B totalling to an extent of Ac.2.14 cents situated in Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi district in terms of the AP Agricultural land (conversion for non-agricultural purposes) Act, 2006 and rules thereunder, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010386152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19612/2025 Between: 1.CHITTETI RAVI KUMAR, S/O.CH.CHENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/0.1-65/1, INKANDRIGA, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, RENIGUNTA MANUAL TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the application made by the petitioner for conversion of agriculture land to non-agricutture land pertaining to subject lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/14, Ac.O.IOcents in Sy.No.306/13, Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.no.306/1.2, Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.306/11, Ac.0.47 cents in Sy.No.306/10, Ac.0.465 cents in Sy.No.301/9B, Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.301/9A, Ac.0.085 cents in Sy.No.301/8B, Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/17B, Ac.0.07 cents in 2 sy.No.306/15 and Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.no.301/7B totalling to an extent of Ac.2.14 cents situated in Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi district on 09.07.2025 without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to provisions of AP Agricultural land (conversion for agricultural purposes) Act, 2006 and rules thereunder and consequently set aside the rejection order passed by the respondent authorities by further directing the respondents to take necessary action on the application in terms of Act 6 of 2006 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the rejection orders passed by the respondent authorities on 09.07.2025 and direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner pertaining to subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/14, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.306/13, Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.no.306/12, Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.306/11, Ac.0.47 cents in Sy.No.306/10, Ac.0.465 cents in Sy.No.301/9B, Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.301/9A, Ac.0.085 cents in Sy.No.301/8B, Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/17B, Ac.0.07 cents in sy.No.306/15 and Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.no.301/7B totalling to an extent of Ac.2.14 cents situated in Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi district interms of the AP Agricultural land (conversion for non-agriculturat purposes) Act, 2006 and rules thereunder, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Kanakala Devi Prasannakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. 3 2. The petitioner made an application vide Application No.NLCR250621045353 dated 21.06.2025 (Ex.P3), to the 3'^^ respondent seeking conversion of agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/14, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.306/13, Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.306/12, Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.306/11, Ac.0.47 cents in Sy.No.306/10, Ac.0.465 cents in Sy.No.301/9B, Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.301/9A, Ac.0.085 cents in Sy.No.301/8B, Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.306/17B, Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.306/15 and Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.301/7B totaling to an extent of Ac.2.14 cents of Krishnapuram Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi Districtto non-agricultural. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said application was rejected, as seen from the online status “rejected beyond SLA”. Learned counsel would also submit that no reasons were assigned while rejecting the application made by the petitioner. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would fairly submit that no reasons were assigned as per the rejection order dated 09.07.2025 (Ex.P1). Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the 3'^ respondent will pass a reasoned order. 4. It is a settled principle of law that the administrative authority or quasi judicial authority must assign reasons while passing orders. Reasons are the heart and soul of every order passed by administrative authority or quasi judicial authority. 5. 6. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 7. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers^ the Hon’ble Apex ^ f2010) 9 see 496 ^ (2010) 4 sec 785 4 Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same, it becomes lifeless. 8. As seen from the rejection order dated 09.07.2025 (Ex.P1), the application made by the petitioner was rejected, and the reason mentioned is “rejected beyond SLA”. Prima facie, the rejection order suffers from a lack of reasons. 9. Given the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The rejection order dated 09.07.2025 (Ex.P1) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the 3'"^ respondent. The learned 3'^^ respondent shall pass a speaking order, in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner vide Application No. NLCR250621045353 dated 21.06.2025 (Ex.P3), within six (06) weeks. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 10. ^(2008) 15 see 711 Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE eOPY// SEeTION OFFieER To, The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Tirupathi District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi District. (By Speed Post) The Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal Tirupathi District. One CC to Sri Kanakala Devi Prasannakumar Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. TF HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19612 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS