IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAU (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 37354 OF 2022 Between: 1. Smt. Mellacheruvu Vardhanama, W/o. Late Venkata Subrahmanyam, Age 85 years, R/o H.No 3744, Road No 8, MIG, Phase-ll, Vidhyuth Nagar, Tellapur, Medhak, Presently residing at D.No. 15-15-32, Paparajuthota, Chirala, Prakasham District. 2. Smt Kowta Adishesha Kumari, W/o Satyanarayana, Age 54 years, R/o 1st Lane, Gunturuvari Thota, Guntur town and District. 3. Smt V.Sudha Rani, W/o Srinivasulu, Age 53 years, R/o Adikmet, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Bapatia District, Bapatla. 3. The Tahsildar, Parchuru, Bapatla District. 4. The Sub Registrar, Parchuru, Bapatla District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the impugned Endorsement of 2nd Respondent vide E.No/ 198593/(E5) Dated 02.02.2019 in refusing to delete the Petitioners Ex Service man land in an extent of Ac 1.80 cents in Sy No €1 631/2 of Cherukuru Village, Parchuru Mandal, Baptia district from list of Prohibitory of properties u/s 22-A of Registration Act which is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Go.Ms.No.279 of Revenue(assn.- rj Department, Dated 04.07.2016 and Violation of Article 300-A and 14, 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently set aside the above impugned Endorsement vide in E.No./ 198593/(E5) Dated 02/02/2019 and direct the Respondents to forthwith delete the Petitioner land from List of Prohibitory Properties in respect to land of Ac.1.80 Cents in Sy.631/2 situated at Cherukuru Village, Parchuru Mandal, Bapatia District. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 to forth with initiate immediate steps to remove the Petitioner's land of Ac.1.80 Cents in Sy.631/2 situated at Cherukuru Village, Parchuru Mandal, Baptia District from Prohibitory List of properties u/s 22-A of Registration Act, pending writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 'idf APHC010624082022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 37354/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Smt. Mellacheruvu Vardhanama and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Assailing the endorsement of respondent no.2-District Collector, vide E.No/198593/(E5), dated 02.02.2019 in refusing to delete the property of the petitioner in an extent of Ac. 1-80 cents in Survey No.631/2 of Cherukuru Village, Parchuru Mandal, Bapatia District from the list of prohibitory properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Kirshna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader. .W(PMo.37354 of2u^ s ' 2 3. Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the application made by the petitioner for deletion of his property from the list of prohibited properties was rejected basing on the reports of the Tahsildar and Joint Collector, without furnishing the said reports to the petitioner and therefore, there is sheer violation of principles of natural justice and thus the impugned endorsement has to be set aside. 4. Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders and that there are no valid grounds in this writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the endorsement whereby the petitioner's request was rejected was passed solely basing on the reports of the Tahsildar and Joint Collector referred to at references-3 & 4 therein, however, the petitioner was not apprised of the said reports and he was not given any opportunity to respond to them and therefore, there was sheer violation of principles of natural justice and thus the impugned endorsement has to be set aside. 6. Perusal of the impugned orders no doubt clarifies that the request made by the petitioner for deletion of his property from the list of prohibited properties was rejected solely basing on the reports of the Tahsildar referred to at reference nos.3 and 4 of the said endorsement. ‘RCJ '.W(pMo.37354 of2022 3 7. In Deepak Ananda Rati! vs. State of Maharashtra & other^, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and allowed to respond to it. I 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in umpteen cases held that unless a reasonable opportunity is given to a person to meet the case against him/her, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. 9. In the instant case, since the endorsement impugned in this writ petition has been passed relying on the material without apprising the to the petitioner and without giving her an opportunity to respond to it, such an endorsement is vitiated. Therefore, it is needless to go deep into merits of the matter. same 10. In view of the above, the endorsement impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back for passing orders afresh answering all the aspects raised by the petitioner, after serving copies of the communications relied on while passing impugned orders on the petitioner and after affording her an opportunity to respond to the said communications besides affording her an opportunity of being heard. ^ (2023)11 see 130 M./cPMo37354 of2o^^ Vi 4 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ^ Amarava^hi^' Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, 2. The District Collector, Bapatia District, Bapatla. 3. The Tahsildar, Parchuru, Bapatla District. 4. The Sub Registrar, Parchuru, Bapatla District. 5. One CC to Sri S Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies To, TF HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.37354 of 2022 O X 2 Ii FEB 2025 ^ . Current Sectlor I? j.. DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS