<5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV^TI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTI^ DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11486 OF 2025 H '•&\' H ! II ' /f.l V./'; (/}} •11 <>o Between: 1. Smt. Rupanagudi Lakshmamma, W/o Late Pddda Dasthagiri, Aged Resident of D.No.2-5B, about 55 years, Occ Agriculture R.Nagulavaram village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District. 2. Chowdudinne Chinna Dasthagiri, S/o Late Subbanna, Aged about 64 years, Occ Agriculture, Resident of D.No.2-5, T.Lingamdinne village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District. 3. Chowdudinne Venkata Ramana, S/o Late Subbanna, Aged about 51 Occ Agriculture, Resident of D.No.2-5, T.Lingamdinne village. years, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District ...Petitioners AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, , Nandyal District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Nandyal District. 4. The Tahsildar, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal 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 issue a Writ, Order of Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the 4 respondent in rejecting the Mee-Seva Application Nos.MUT240918029549, MUT240918033238 and MUT240918024723 dated 18-09-2024 made by th •3 the petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue records for the properties admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.18 cents, Ac. 1.16 cents and Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.124 of R.Nagulavaram village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District respectively without conducting proper enquiry and without passing reasoned order is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional respondent to conduct proper enquiry and th and consequently direct the 4 pass appropriate orders for mutation of the petitioner's names in the revenue records for the above mentioned properties. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 4*'^ respondent to conduct proper enquiry and pass appropriate orders for mutation of the petitioner's names in the revenue records for the properties admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.18 cents, Ac. 1.16 cents and Ac. 1.16 cents in Sy.No.124 of R.Nagulavaram village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District. Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for the Respondents The Court made the following: : SRI. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA : GP FOR REVENUE 'JS APHC010216252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11486/2025 Between: Smt. Rupanagudi Lakshmamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11486/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue Writ, Order of Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the 4^^ respondent in rejecting the Mee-Seva Application NOS.MUT240918029549, MUT240918024723 dated 18.09.2024 made by the petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue records for the properties admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.18 cents, Ac.1.16 cents and Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.124 of R.Nagulavaram village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District respectively without conducting proper enquiry and without passing reasoned order is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent to conduct proper enquiry and pass appropriate orders for mutation of the petitioners names in the revenue records for the above mentioned properties and to pass such other order. and MUT240918033238 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned 2. Government Pleader for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners submitted an application seeking for mutation in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.18 cents, Ac.1.16 cents and Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.124 of R.Nagulavaram village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District vide Mee-Sava application on 18.09.2024, without considering the application properly and without giving any 3. 3 reasons, the mutation application of the petitioners was rejected on 09.10.2024 by one as the application is beyond SLA, which is contrary to the settled proposition of law. He further submits that the authority while exercising its power, rejected the claim of the petitioners that should be explained by cogent the reasons of which the claim of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioners should be provided an opportunity of hearing before rejecting the claim of the petitioners by adhering to the basic tenets of administration law. The application of the petitioners cannot be rejected without enumerating cogent reasons, in the absence of reasons the rejection order dated 09.10.2024 is liable to be set aside. Hence the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader did not refute the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the respondent authorities will pass appropriate orders with reasons substantiating their action of rejection of petitioner’s application for mutation. 5. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material, this Court is of the considered view that the order of rejection passed by the 4^'^ respondent without assigning any reasons and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners is certainly contrary to the basic principles of administrative law i.e., any order of the respondents should be passed with due reasons and after observing the principles of natural 4 justice as well as reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but, in the present case, it is observed that, the impugned order passed by the 4*'' respondent is without adhering to the principles of natural justice as well as without assigning any reasons on which the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable or not entitled. Hence the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 is hereby set aside. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed further to pass a fresh order by assigning reasons after observing the principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy o the 6. order. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, , State Of Andhra Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue 1. The Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, , Nandyal District. Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Nandyal District. , Nandyal District.(1 to 4 by RPAD) 3. The Revenue Tahsildar, Rudravaram Mandal - VUTUPALLl RAJANNA Advocate [OPUC] GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. 4. The 5. One CC to SRI. 6. TwoCCsto [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies KSR HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER % o I 2 9 SEP 2025 & Current Section WP.No.11486 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS