IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5463 OF 2022 Between: Smt. Gurugubelli Neelaveni, W/o Polinaidu, Age 50 years, R/o D.No. 4- 35, Kinthali Miliu, Main Road, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. 4. The TahsHdar, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the Respondents in showing Petitioners land in List of Prohibitory Properties u/s 22-A of Registration Act in respect to land in land admeasuring Ac. 1.00 Cents in Sy.10 of Sy No 10 an extent of Ac. 1.00 Cents situated at Jarajam village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam. District which was assigned under Ex- Service quota and refused to delete the same from prohibitory list vide its Endorsement in D.Dis No.1884/2020/E3 Dated 05/12/2020 which is contrary to Go.Ms.No279 of Revenue(assn.-I) Department, Dated 4.7.2016 and, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, colorable exercise of power, application of mind. Violation of Article 300-A and 14, 21 of The non- 0 Constitution of India and consequently set aside the above impugned vide its Endorsement in D.Dis No.1884/2020/E3 Dated 05/12/2020 and direct the Respondents to forthwith delete the Petitioner land from List of Prohibitory Properties in respect to land in Sy No 10 an extent of Ac. 1.00 Cents situated at Jarajam village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam. District. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Respondents to forth with initiate immediate steps to remove the Petitioner's land in Sy No 10 an extent of Ac. 1.00 Cents situated at Jarajam village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District from Prohibitory List of properties u/s 22-A of Registration Act, pending writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant leave to the Petitioner for filing the Reply affidavit in the above said Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010089762022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5463/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER Smt. Gurugubelli Neelaveni AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: nd respondent vide Impugning the endorsement of the 2 D.Dis.No.1884/2020/E3 dated 05.12.2020 rejecting the petitioners request for deletion of the assigned land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.10 of Jarajam Village. Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act. 1908, the present Writ Petition is filed. r— f 2. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit submitted that, the subject land has been assigned in favour of the petitioner’s father in the year 1971, under ex-servicemen quota, accordingly, he came into possession of the property and cultivating the same and eking out their livelihood. Pursuant to the death of the petitioner’s father, her mother name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook issued in her favour and after demise of her mother in the year 2017, the petitioner came into possession of the property as a sole legal heir. Due to family necessities, the petitioner approached the respondents to delete the subject property from prohibited properties list by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, which was rejected by the Collector concerned, by way of the impugned endorsement informing the petitioner that the land she is claiming is a Cheruvu Poramboke. He further submitted that the order impugned is very cryptic and no reasons have been stated as to how the authority came to a conclusion that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. Further, even according to their own revenue records the land in Sy.No.10 is Ac.9.73 cents out of which Ac.8.73 cents is classified as tank and with respect of the remaining Ac. 1.00 cents is concerned the petitioners name has been found place. The said aspect was not taken due note of by the authority concerned while passing the impugned endorsement. Even accordingHo the said G.O., the land assigned 3. 3 to ex-servicemen is free to sell away after a period of ten years, as such, if the said order subsists, the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Constitution will be affected, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter of 5. the Tahsildar and Collector justified their action and contended that the subject land is classified as tank, as such, the petitioner’s request is rejected. There is no illegality or procedural irregularity while passing the order impugned. The petitioner cannot ventilate her grievance before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution. The petitioner has not raised any proper and valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner being a sole legal heir of her father is claiming the subject property. It is her case that the revenue authorities had assigned the subject land to her father in the year 1971 under ex-servicemen quota. Thereafter, the said property has been kept in the prohibited list, for which she made an application to the revenue authorities for deletion of the same in view of G.O.Ms.No.1117, wherein the impugned endorsement of the Collector Srikakulam, has been issued rejecting the request of petitioner on the ground that the subject property is classified as tank. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is very cryptic and 1 4 bereft of reasons. The reports which were relied by the Collector does not reflect in the order impugned. It is well settled that reasons are the link between the order and the mind of the authority that passes the order. Proper reasons, even in administrative order, are the necessary concomitant for a valid order passed by the administrative authority. The purpose of indicating such reasons in administrative order is to convey to the affected parties the satisfaction arrived at by the authority for the conclusion it has reached, so that the aggrieved person will have the opportunity to get the correctness of such reasons tested before the appropriate forum, be it appellate authority or the Constitutional Courts. 8. As stated supra the order/endorsement impugned does not give any proper reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s application. A perusal of the adangal placed on record would indicate that the total extent of the land in the that survey number is Ac.9.73 cents out of which Ac.8.73 cents is classified as tank and in one acre, petitioners father name found place. These aspects were also not taken into consideration while passing the endorsement. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar which were relied on by the Collector for passing orders have not been supplied to the petitioner and hence there is violation of principles of natural justice. It is a well-established principle of administrative law 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 given an 9. 10. 5 opportunity to respond to it. “If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. In the present case, the Collector has not followed the said principle as well. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles of law and it has to be set aside and remitted back to the authority concerned for fresh adjudication. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The impugned endorsement vide D.Dis.No.1884/2020/E3/05/12/2020 dated 05.12.2020 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector. The Collector concerned shall provide the reports mentioned in the endorsement to the petitioner inviting explanation and also by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to her and pass fresh orders as expeditiously possible not later than a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as 11. as 12. to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. U® TahsHdar, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam 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. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:03/02/2025 ^rO»'AND7#^ ORDER WP.No.5463 of 2022 2 7 m 2m ^ . Current iecuon DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS