w APHC010392292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) I THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY^ |o'^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI^ WRIT PETITION NO: 19817 OF 207^ o tr )> o. Between: Chitteti Jayakumar, S/o. Ch.Radhaiah, Diguvamallavaram, Krishnapuram,Chittoor Aged about 29 years, R/o. 4-290, , Chittoor District.. ...PETITIONER- AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 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 Mandal, Tirupathi District. Srikalahasthi Revenue Division, ...RESPONDENTS 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 decianng the action of the respondents in rejecting the application made by the petitioner for conversion of agricuiture iand to non-agricuiture iand pertaining to subject lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Sy.No.301/9D, Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.304/4, Ac.0.28 cents in Sy.No 306/1 Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.306/2, Ac.0.045 cents in Sy.No.306/3B, Ac.0.66 cents Petition under Article 22§'of the Constitution > in Sy.No.307/1, Ac.0.52 cents in Sy.No.307/10, Ac.0.11 Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.307/12B, Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.307/14B, Ac.0.27 Sy.No.307/6C totaling to Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal in Sy.No.307/11B, cents in Sy.No.307/13B, Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.307/9, and Ac.0.57 an extent of cents in Ac.4.745 cents situated in Tirupathi district on 09 07 2025 without assigning any reasons as iiiegai, arbitrary and i Of natural justice and in violation of principles contrary to provisions of AP Agricultural land purposes) Act, 2006 and rules there under (conversion for non-agricultural and oonsequently set aside the rejection order passed by the respondent authorities by further directing the respondents the application in terms of Act 6 of 2006^ to take necessary action on lA NO: 1 OF 9c\o^ Petition under Section 151^PC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the rejection orders passed by the respondent authorities respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner pertaining to subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac 0 60 cents in Sy.No.301/9D, Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.304/4, Ac.0.28 on 09.07.2025 and direct the 3'^^ cents in in Sy.No.306/2, Ac.0.045 cents in Sy.No.306/3B Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.307/1, Ac.0.52 Sy.No.307/11B, Ac.0.12 Sy.No.306/1, Ac.0.27 cents i cents in Sy.No.307/10, Ac.0.11 iin cents in Sy.No.307/12B Ac.0.35 cents in cents in an extent of Tirupati Sy.No.307/13B, Ac.0.22 Sy.No.307/9, and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.307/6C totaling to Ac.4.745 cents situated in Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, district, pending disposal of the writ petition. cents in Sy.No.307/14B, Ac.0.27 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KANAKALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 The Court made the following order: DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR- to 4: GP FOR REVENUE ^ APHC010392292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19817/2025 Between: 1.CHITTETI JAYAKUMAR, S/0. CH.RADHAIAH YEARS KRISHNAPURAM.CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.. AGED ABOUT 29 DIGUVAMALLAVARAM, R/0. 4-290, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKALAHASTHI REVENUE DIVISION, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. . 4.THE TAHSILDAR, RENIGUNTA MANDAL 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-agriculture land pertaining to subject lands admeasuring an extent Sy.No.301/9D, Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.304/4, Ac.0.28 cents in Sy.No.306/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.306/2, Ac.0.045 cents in Sy.No.306/3B, Ac.0.66 cents Lin Sy.No.307/1, Ac.0.52 cents in Sy.No.307/10, Ac.0.11 in Sy.No.307/11B, of Ac.0.60 cents in ■ 2 Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.NO.307/12B, Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.307/13B Ac 0 22 S^No 307mr°1Tr®' Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.307/6C totaling to an extent of Ac.4.745 cents situated in Knshnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi district on 09 07 2025 without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles f natural justice and contrary to provisions of AP Agricultural land (conversion for non-agricultural purposes) Act, 2006 and rules there under 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 209Fi in circumstances stated the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to n3onoc respondent authorities h!',h respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner pertaining to subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Sy.No.301/9D, Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.304/4, Ac.0.28 cents in Sy.No.306/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.306/2, Ac.0.045 cents i Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.307/1, Ac.0.52 cents Sy.No.307/11B, Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.NO.307/12B, Sy.No.307/13B, Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.307/14B, Sy NC'307/6C totaling to an extent of Ac.4.745 cents situated in Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati district, 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: and pass on in Sy.No.306/3B, in Sy.No.307/10, Ac.0.11 in Ac.0.35 cents in Ac.0.27 cents in ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Kanakala Devi Prasannakumar, petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. learned counsel for the Government Pleader for 3 2. The petitioner made an application vide Application No.NLCR250621046447dated 21.06.2025 (Ex.P2), to the respondent seeking conversion of agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Sy.No.301/9D, Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.304/4, Ac.0.28 cents in Sy.No.306/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.306/2, Ac.0.045 cents in Sy.No.306/3B, Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.307/1, Ac.0.52 cents in Sy.No.307/10, Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.307/11b, Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.307/12B, Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.307/13B, Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.307/14B, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.307/9 and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.307/6C totaling an extent of Ac.4.745 cents of Krishnapuram Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District to 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. 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. 6. V2010)9SCC 496 4 7. In Assistant Commissioner, Commerciai Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota Court held that to sub vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers^ the Hon’ble Apex -serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether after a regular hearing. disposing of the case at the admission stage or 8. 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. 9. As seen from the rejection order dated application made by the petitioner was rejected, and the reason mentioned i rejected beyond SLA”. Prima facie, the rejection order suffers from reasons. 09.07.2025 (Ex.P1), the IS a lack of 10. Given the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The rejection order dated 09.07.2025 (Ex.PI) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the 3'"^ respondent. The learned S'"* speaking order, in pursuance of the application made Application No.NLCR250621046447dated 21.06.2025 respondent shall pass a by the petitioner vide (Ex.P2), within six (06) weeks. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ^2010) 4 see 785 M2008) 15See 711 Sd/- M. RAWJESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Guntur District./ 2. The District Collector, Tirupathi District.^ 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasthi Revenue Tirupathi District. . 4. The Tahsildar, Renigunta Manual, Tirupathi District.-- 5. One CC to Sri Kanakala Devi Prasannakumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. Division ssb HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 1 0 2 SEP 2025 ^ ^^^CurreniSeciion^-^ ““s^patcheoJK ORDER WP No.19817 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS