• N s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10562 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Koya Vanaja, W/o.Ba)akrishna, Aged about; 48 years, Occ: Housewife R/o. Plot No.448^ Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony Road No.8, Vijayawada, NTR District. ...PETITIONER ;AND 1. The State of Andhra PradeSb,? Rep.by its Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariate Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Palnadu District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopeta Revenue Division, Narasaraopeta, Palnadu District 4. The Tahsildar, Ediapadu Mandal,Palnadu District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 22^ pf t^ie Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated (n the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in unilaterally refusing to delete land to an extent of Ac. 1.82 Cents in RS.No. 340-A2D,. 340-A2E, 340-A2B, 340-A2C situated in Vankayalapadu Village, Ediapadu Mandal, Palnadu District from the list of prohibitory properties under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 videfproceedings REV02-GLMOPP/14/2025-DT9E1)-COLLPLND, dated 01.04.2025 illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set- aside the same by directing the respondents to delete the subject lands from the list of prohibitory 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2"^^ Respondent vide REV()2- GLMOPP/14/2025-DT9E1)-COLLPL ND, dated 01.04.2025. i lA NO: 2 OF 2025 - N 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 not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioner to extent of Ac. 1.82 Cents in RS.No. 340-A2D, 340-A2E, 340-A2B, 340-A2C situated in Vankayalapadu Village, Ediapadu Mandal, Palnadu District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: the an •; > APHC010203732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10562/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Koya Vanaja AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA 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: 10562/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^ respondent in unilaterally refusing to delete land to an extent of Ac. 1.82 Cents in RS.No.340-A2D, 340-A2E, 340-A2B, 340-A2C situated in Vankayalapadu Village, Ediapadu Mandal, Palnadu District from the list of prohibitory properties under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration REV02GLMOPP/14/2025-D T9E1)-COLLPLND, 01.04.2025 illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to delete the subject lands from the list of prohibitory properties and pass such other order. ” Act, 1908 vide proceedings dated 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.82 cents in R.S.Nos.340- A2D, 340-A2E, 340-A2B, 340-A2C situated in Vankayalapadu Village, Ediapadu Mandal, Palnadu District. He further submits that earlier the petitioner submitted an application/representation for deletion of the subject property from the list of prohibitory properties register maintained under Section 22-A by the 2'^^ respondent herein. Even after receipt of the same, the 2 nd respondent neither 3 I considered the application/representation nor passed any orders. Having no other option, the petitioner assailed the inaction of the 2 nd respondent by filing Writ Petition No.29390 of 2024, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an order, which is extracted hereunder: “Having regard to the said submission, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, at the admission stage, without going into the merits, directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider the application of the Writ Petitioner dated 19.06.2023 (Ex.P1) and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within a period of fourteen (14) weeks from today and furnish a copy of such order to the Writ Petitioner forthwith. Needless to state that the Respondent No. 2 is statutorily obligated to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice by considering the submissions/objections and documents, if any, of all the interested parties before passing the final Order. ” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though, this Court categorically directed the 2"^^ respondent to consider the application/representation of the petitioner along with nd respondent and provide the records possessed by the 2 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while passing the speaking order, but without issuing any notice and without providing reports submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the 2^^ respondent passed an order dated 01.04.2025, contrary to the observations of this Court dated 16.12.2024. He further submits that it is settled preposition of law once this Court directed the authority to comply with the order in 4 4 the manner as directed, the authority has no other option except to comply with the order of this Court as directed. But in the present case there is deviation/violation to the order of this Court dated 16.12.2024 by the 2’^^ respondent in passing the impugned speaking order dated 01.04.2025. Hence, the impugned speaking order dated 01.04.2025 is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents does not refute the allegations of the petitioner and nd submits that on perusal of the entire order passed by the 2 respondent, it appears that principles of natural justice are not observed as directed by this Court. He further submits that the order of the 2^^ respondent dated 01.04.2025 should be set aside and remand the matter for fresh consideration for compliance of the orders of this Court dated 16.12.2024. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is nd observed that this Court on 16.12.2024 specifically directed the 2 respondent to observe the principles of natural justice while considering the application/representation of the petitioner, after nd / having detailed enquiry. In the instant case, it appears that the 2 1 f respondent considered the representation without observing the / principles of natural justice as directed by this Court. It is nothing but 5 slk violation of the orders of this Court. It is settled law once an authority is directed by a constitutional court to do a particular thing in a particular manner, the authority has no other option except to adhere to the orders of this Court. In view of the same, the impunged order dated 01.04.2025 is contrary to the settled principles more particularly principles of natural justice. Hence, the impunged order dated 01.04.2025 is hereby set aside. However, the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the 2^"^ respondent for compliance of the orders of this court dated 16.12.2024. It is needless to observe that while considering the application/representation of the petitioner, the 2"^^ respondent shall adhere to the principles of natural justice and provide fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and other stakeholders, if any. The entire exercise shall complete within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To, 1. The Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. [By Special Messenger] 2. The District Collector, Palnadu District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopeta Revenue Narasaraopeta, Palnadu District. 4. The Tahsildar, Ediapadu Mandal,Palnadu District.[2 to 4 by RPAD] 5. One CC to SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies Division, gsg p HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.10562 of 2025 THE WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS