/ APHC010395762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESy. AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTL^ WRIT PETITION NO: 19958 OF 202fi ^ Between; Chitteti Radhaiah, S/o. Ch.Venkatrayulu, Aged about Diguvamallavaram, Krishnapuram, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 54 years, R/o. 4-290, ...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 i, the High Court may be or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the application made by the petitioner for Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to issue a writ of mandamus conversion of agriculture land to pertaining to subject lands admeasuring Sy.No.301/9E, Ac.0.05 non-agriculture land an extent of Ac.0.115 cents in cents in Sy.No.306/6A, Ac.0.095 Ac.0.04 cents in cents in cents in Sy.No.306/6C Sy.No.307/11A, Ac.0.04 Sy.No.307/12A, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.310/10, and Ac.0.26 cents in Sy.No.310/2 totaling to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents situated in Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi district on 09.07.2025 \A/ithout assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of 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.'" m 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.0.115 cents in Sy.No.301/9E, Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.306/6A, Ac.0.095 cents in Sy.No.306/6C, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.307/11A, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.307/12A, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.310/10, and Ac.0.26 cents in Sy.No.310/2 totaling to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents situated in Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati district, 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 followingorder: APHC010395762025 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: 19958/2025 Between: 1.CHITTETI RADHAIAH, S/0. CH.VENKATRAYULU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/0. 4-290, DIGUVAMALLAVARAM, KRISHNAPURAM, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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.THETAHSILDAR, 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 pertaining to subject lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.115 cents in Sy.No.301/9E. Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.306/6A, Ac.0.095 Sy.No.306/6C, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.307/11A, Sy.No.307/12A, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.310/10, and Ac.0.26 cents in land to non-agriculture land cents in Ac.0.04 cents in i 2 Sy.No.310/2 totaling to an extent of Ac.0.64 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 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 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated Petition, 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 bv the petitioner pertaining to subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.115 1 Sy.No.306/6A, Ac.0.095 cents in Sy.No.307/11A, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.310/10, and Ac.0.26 cents in extent of Ac.0.64 cents situated in Krishnapuram cents in Sy.No.301/9E, Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.306/6C, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.307/12A, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.310/2 totaling to an Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati district, pending disposal of the writ village 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:: Devi Prasannakumar, learned counsel for the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Heard Sri Kanakala petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. Application w'cfe application made an petitioner NO.NLCR250621045946 dated 21.06.2025 (Ex.P2), to the 3'"^ respondent seeking conversion of agricultural land of an 2. The extent of Ac.0.04 cents in 3 Sy.No.310/10 and Aq.0.26 cents i Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District to in Sy.No.310/2 of Krishnapuram Village non-agricultural. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the was rejected, as seen from the online status counsel would also submit that i application made by the petitioner. said application rejected beyond SLA”. Learned no reasons were assigned while rejecting the 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would fairly that no reasons were assigned (Ex.P1). Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further 3''^ respondent will pass a reasoned order. submit per the rejection order dated 09.07.2025 as submit that the 5. It is a settled principle of law that the administrative authority or quasi- judicial authority must assign reasons while passing orders. Reasons heart and soul of are the every order passed by administrative authority or quasi- judicial authority. 6. In M/s KrantI Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another Others' the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the record reasons in support of its conclusions while vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & quasi-judicial authority must : exercising appellate powers. 7. 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 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 JaP the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without same, it becomes lifeless. the f2010)9SCC 496 ^(2010) 4 see 785 = (2008) 15 see 711 4 9. 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. 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 respondent shall 10. pass a speaking order, in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner vide Application No. NLCR250621045946 dated 21.06.2025 (Ex.P2), within six (06) weeks. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. R.AiVIESH BABU TRAR / DEPUTY R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupathi District.'^" 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasthi Revenue DivisRTn, Tirupathi District. 4. TheTahsildar, Renigunta Mandal, 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 Revenue Department, Secretariat, TF HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19958 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS