APHC010395022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHR^^ADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS r3 THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19912 O^ 2025 Between: K Ramesh Naidu, S/o.Sri Krishna (Late), R/o.D.No.109, Ramakrishna Venu^ia, Najjibur Village, Guntur District. ...Petitioner Aged about 42 years AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bapatia, Bapatia District, Pradesh. ^ , 3. The Tahsildar, Parchur Mandal, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Andhra ...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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in rejecting the Applications of the petitioner submitted in Online Portal for conversion of Agriculture land into Non-Agricultural purpose, situated in an extent of Ac.1.68 cents in Survey No.14/2A2B of Upputuru Village, Parchur Mandal, Bapatia District, without passing any speaking order to the petitioner. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of respondents 2 the Constitution of India and consequently direct the arfd 3 to refund an amount of RsA^20l- paid by the petitioner to the Respondents 2 and 3, by recovering the same from their salaries. 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 direct the-respondents 2 and 3 to refund an amount of Rs.46,320/- paid by the petitidner to the Respondents 2 and 3, by recovering the same from their salaries, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: % APHC010395022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS [3331] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19912/2025 Between: 1.K RAMESH NAIDU, S/O.SRI KRISHNA (LATE) YEARS, AGED ABOUT 42 NAMBUR R/O.D.NO.109, RAMAKRISHNA VENUZIA VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REVENUE SECRETARIAT, 2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE TAHSILDAR, PARCHUR MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH. BAPATLA 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in rejecting the Applications of the petitioner submitted in Online Portal for conversion of Agriculture land into Non-Agricultural purpose, situated in an extent of Ac. 1.68 cents in Survey No.14/2A2B of Upputuru Village, Parchur Mandal, Bapatia District, without passing any speaking order to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra virus, and violative of Articles 14 2 0 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to refund an amount of Rs.46,320/- paid by the petitioner to the Respondents 2 and 3, by recovering the same from their salaries, 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 direct the-respondents 2 and 3 to refund an amount of Rs.46,320/- paid by the petitioner to the Respondents 2 and 3, by recovering the same from their salaries, pending disposal of the writ petition, and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSURYAKIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: pass ::ORDER:: Heard Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. Revenue for 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased Ac. 1.68 cents in Sy.No.44/2A2 of Upputuru Village, Parchur Mandal under a Registered Sale Deed dated 04.10.2024 No.3336/2024 (Ex.P1). The petitioner made an application seeking conversion of agricultural vide Document land into non-agricultural NO.NLCR241221031694 dated 21.12.2024 (Ex.P3) to the 2 same was rejected with an endorsement “rejected beyond SLA”, petitioner made another application vide Application No.NLCR250622001088 dated 22.06.2025 (Ex.P5). The said application was also rejected with an endorsement “rejected beyond SLA”. land vide Application respondent. The The nd 3 * * 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no reasons were assigned. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, would fairly submit that the rejection endorsement will not withstand the legal scrutiny. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would also submit that no reasons were assigned in the rejection endorsement. He would submit that the authority will pass a fresh 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. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is f ! 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. 7. I 8. In the case at hand, a perusal of the endorsements filed at page Nos.32 and 34, no reasons were assigned. 9. f2010) 9 see 496 ^(2010) 4 see 785 ’(2008) 15 see 711 4 $ 10. As seen from the endorsement, it is a computer-generated endorsement, since the application was disposed of within twenty-one days. The learned 2""' respondent is duty-bound to consider the application made by the petitioner and must pass appropriate orders. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The endorsement “rejected beyond SLA” concerning the petitioner’s applications vide Application NO.NLCR241221031694 dated 21.12.2024 (Ex.P3) NO.NLCR250622001088 dated 22.06.2025 (Ex.P5), regarding conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 1.68 cents in Sy.No.44/2A2 of Upputuru Village, Parchur Mandal, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the 2"^^ respondent. The learned 2"" respondent shall consider the application made by the petitioner for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land and pass appropriate orders in four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. and Application Sd/- V DIWAKAR deputy REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bapatia, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. TheTahsit archur Mapdal, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. One CC to Sri. V Surya Kiran Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. AL HIGH COURT DATED;31/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19912 OF 2025 Of ANDW^ ^ Z 2 SEP 2025 m eoL ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS