>4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATt^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 2149 OF 2025 Between: Gaikwad Hanumantha Rao, S/o. G.Rangaiah, Aged about 67 Business, R/o. D.No.7-2-10-2, Nehru Nagar, Dhone, Nandyal years, Occ District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principat Secretary, (Revenue) Secretariat Buildings, Nelapadu Village, Amaravati District. 2. The District Level Scrutiny Committee, Rep. by its Chairman District, Nandyal. 3. The District Collector, Nandyal District, Nandyal. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone Revenue Nandyal District. 5. The Tahsildar, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District. Guntur Nandyal Division, Dhone ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to Issue an Order or Direction or Writ may more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the proceedings of 2"“ respondent dated 28.08.2024 passed in Rc.BI/1115/2024 violation of principles of natural justice and suffers from of mind and contrary to Sec.4 of A.P. as arbitrary, illegal, in I total non-application Dotted Lands (Updation in Re settlement Register) Act, 2017 and direct the 2 consequently to set aside the same and an extent of Ac.0.67 nd respondent to delete Sy.No.478/B to cents of Dhone Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District from the prohibited property list in the light of the reports submitted by respondents 4 and 5 vide ^ Rc.AI/222/2023 dated 18.04.2023 and Rc.B/444-A/2022 dated 31.01.2023 respectively. 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 2"'' respondent to delete Sy.No.478/B to an extent of Ac.0.67 cents of Dhone Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District from the prohibited property list in the light of the reports submitted by respondents 4 and 5 vide Rc.AI/222/2023 dated 18.04.2023 and Rc.B/444-A/2022 31.01.2023 respectively, pending disposal of the writ petition. dated Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI K. ARJUN CHOWDARY, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010038762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 2149/2025 Between: 1.GAIKWAD HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/0. G.RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. D.NO.7-2-10-2, NEHRU NAGAR, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (REVENUE) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU VILLAGE, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE REVENUE DIVISION, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5.THE TAHSILDAR, DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri C, Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Stamps & Registration. 2. The Endorsement passed by the Joint Collector, Nandyal District dated 28.08.2024 (Ex.P.1) is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that, he has made an Application for deletion of the subject property from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 on 28.11.2022 (Ex.P.10). In response to the said Application of the Writ Petitioner, in the normal course, the District Collector had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and submit a Report. The Tahsildar has submitted a Report on 31.01.2023 to the District Collector through the Revenue Divisional Officer (through proper channel) (Ex.P.11). The Revenue Divisional Officer also has submitted another Report dated 18.04.2023 (Ex.P.12) to the District Collector. 4. It is submitted by the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the gist of the Reports submitted by the Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer are in favour of the Writ Petitioner herein. While this is in the process, the Writ Petitioner has submitted an Application under 'Spandana 28.08.2023, for which the Tahsildar has issued the response vide Proceeding dated 26.10.2023 (Ex.P.13) stating that the case of the Writ Petitioner is under consideration before the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DISC). on 5. While the case of the Writ Petitioner is under consideration before the DISC, the Writ Petitioner has once again submitted a grievance before the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) on 01.07.2024. The said grievance was forwarded to the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector, vide the impugned Endorsement dated 28.08.2024 (Ex.P.1), has rejected the 4- Application with certain reasons mentioned therein. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Joint Collector has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to pass the Endorsement declining to consider the of the Writ Petitioner under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. case 6. As it can be seen from the record, the Thasildar, vide Proceeding dated 26.10.2023 (Ex.P.13) had informed the Writ Petitioner that his case is under consideration before the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DISC). The Writ Petitioner, unable to wait for the outcome in the case pending before the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) and the District Collector, had unnecessarily approached the wrong Forum namely the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS), that compelled the Joint Collector to pass the Impugned Order. Had the Writ Petitioner pursued the right path and would have waited for the final outcome in his case that is pending before the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) and the District Collector, the Endorsement (impugned herein) would not have been passed. It is the opinion of the Court that the impugned Endorsement was unnecessarily invited by the Writ Petitioner himself. In any case, the Joint Collector ought not to have assumed the jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of this nature, which is submitted in the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS). The Joint Collector has already noticed in the impugned Endorsement dated 28.08.2024 (Ex.P.1) about the progress of Application submitted by the Writ Petitioner for deletion of his property from 22-A List. The various references in the Endorsement dated 28.08.2024 (Ex.P.1) would also indicate that the Joint Collector has taken stock of the record submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and favour of the Writ Petitioner. Under such Tahsildar, which are in circumstances, the Joint Collector ought not to have assumed jurisdiction which he never had. 5. Since the impugned Endorsement is passed by the Joint Collector without any jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that the said Endorsement is Accordir^y, the impugned Endorsement bearing not sustainable in law. 4 set aside. Since the RC.B1/1115/2024, dated 28.08.2024 (Ex.P.1) is Application of the Writ Petitioner Prohibited Properties L _ at the final state pending before the District Collector (Respondent No.3) and consideration by the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DISC), this Court would deem it appropriate to direct the District Collector (Respondent No.3) to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner in the light of the Report submitted by Divisional Officer dated 31.01.2023 (Ex.P.11) snd for deletion of the subject property from the List under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, is for the Tahsildar and Revenue 18 04.2023 (Ex.P.12) respectively and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within eight weeks and communicate a copy of such Order to the Writ Petitioner forthwith. Needless to state that the Respondent No.3 is statutorily obligated to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice by issuing Advance Notice to the Writ Petitioner, consider his submissions/objectio ns and documents, if any, before passing the Final Order. Writ Petitioner is directed of this Order to the Respondent No.3 within one week from to submit a copy today for effective compliance. and directions, this Writ Petition stands e.With these observations allowed. No order as to costs. 7.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terrns of this order. SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU assistant, registrar //TRUE COPY// OFFICER S To, 1. The Principal Secretary, (Revenue), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Nelapadu Village, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Chairman, District Level Scrutiny Committee, Nandyal District, Nandyal. 3. The District Collector, Nandyal District, Nandyal. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone Revenue Division, Dhone, Nandyal District. 5. The Tahsildar, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District. 6. One CC to Sri C. Prakash Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:13/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2149 of 2025 X 2 *» FEB 2025 ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS