APHC010069102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3812/2025 Between: 1. JANGALA CHELAMAYYA, S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7-10-15, NISTALAVARI STREET, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. JANGALA RAMESH,, S/O CHELAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7-10-15, NISTALAVARI STREET, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTORCUMSETTLEMENT OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2ND respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of Ryothuwari Patta U/Sec.11 (a) of the Inam Abolition Act, 1948 for the lands situated at E-Bonangi, Bhuddapuvanipalem Tanam, Ponnuru Agraharam Lemarthy Agraharam, Jagannadhapuram and Parawada Villages of Anakapalli District through Endorsement Comp.No.32245/2023/L2(DT- LM), dated 19.07.2023 without providing opportunity, without conducting enquiry as required under law is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2ND respondent to conduct enquiry for grant of Inam Abolition Act, 1948 for the lands situated at E-Bonangi, Bhuddapuvanipalem, Tanam, Ponnuru Agraharam Lemarthy Agraharam, Jagannadhapuram and Parawada Villages of Anakapalli District, after providing opportunity without influencing the order in Proceedings Rc.No.1805/2016/F2, dated 24.06.2016 on the file of the Joint Collector-cum- Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam and to pass….’ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent. 4. Initially, the petitioners made an application under Section 11(a) of the Inam Abolition Act, 1948, before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. As no action was taken on the said application, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No.453 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22.02.2021, directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the application submitted by the petitioners within a period of eight (08) weeks, in accordance with law. 5. Pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition, the Joint Collector-cum- Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, took up the matter, heard the parties, and reserved orders. However, due to the bifurcation of districts, the jurisdiction stood transferred to the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Anakapalli, and the files were accordingly transferred vide proceedings dated 10.09.2022. As no orders were passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the petitioners were constrained to invoke the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act by filing C.C. No.2766 of 2023. After issuance of notice, the respondents filed their reply, wherein reference was made to an endorsement issued by the competent authority, which is the impugned endorsement, rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 6. It is contended that the impugned endorsement was issued contrary to the prescribed procedure and without issuing any notice to the petitioners. Even upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the competent authority neither issued any notice nor afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their claim before passing the impugned endorsement. 7. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the same does not disclose any reasons and is not a speaking order. The impugned order is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting asides the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioners after issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, and to pass a reasoned order based on the record, in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 30.12.2025 klk 237 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.3812 of 2025 30.12.2025 kkllkk