APHC010132392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7034/2026 Between: 1. KANTAMANENI RAJA BAPAIAH, S/O. RAJENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. SARADA NILAYAM, NEAR DEEKSHA ACADAMY P.V.P. SIDDARDHA COLLEGE ROAD, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM-521001. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM-521001 4. NAGAYATHIPPA GRAMAPANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NAGAYATHIPPA, MOPIDEVI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521125. 5. KANTAMANENI RAMA MOHANA PRASAD ALIAS RAMA MOHANA RAO, S/O. RAJENDRA RAO, AGED MAJOR, R/O. 3-5-1083/A/B/1/3, FLAT NO.509, SRI TARAJEET RESIDENCY, RAM NARAYAN ROAD NEAR DEEPAK THEATER, VTC, NARAYANAGUDA, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE-500029. Page 2 of 6 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide C.No. 1003668 Pts.5 dt. 30-01-2026 by setting aside the proceedings of the 4th respondent in RC. No. 5/025 Dt. 10-04-2025 in respect of D.No. 1-1 of Nagayathippa Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District, without notice, no opportunity was given to hear the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide C.No. 1003668Pts5 dt. 30-01-2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide C.No. 1003668Pts5 dt. 30-01-2026, pending disposal of the above writ petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide E file C.No.1003668 Pts.5, dated 30.01.2026, the above writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri G. Uday Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondents 1 to 3, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing p. 3 Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.4 and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel, appeared for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 issued the proceedings impugned. In fact, the proceedings impugned do not contain any cogent reasons. learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent supported the proceedings. 4. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, respondent No.5 made an application to respondent No.4 to mutate his name in respect of D.No.1-1 of Nagayathippa Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. The Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.4, by proceedings in R.C.No.5/2025, dated 10.04.2025 (Ex.P1), rejected the application. Respondent No.5 filed an appeal before Respondent No.3. The appellate authority allowed, and further directed the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.4 to take further action and submit the compliance report. The authority further directed the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Machilipatnam and the Deputy Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Mopidevi, to follow up on the issue and submit the compliance report. 5. It is also an undisputed fact that the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2025 filed by respondent No.5 on the file of the learned VI Addl. District Judge, Avanigadda, for declaration of title and also the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2025 filed by the petitioner on the file of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Avanigadda, for declaration of title, are pending. 6. As seen from the proceedings impugned issued by respondent No.3, while allowing the appeal, the appellate authority recorded the reasons as follows: “on perusal of record, the request is found to be satisfactory”. Except for the above reasons, no other reasons were assigned for arriving at such a p. 4 conclusion. The proceedings issued by respondent No.3, do not indicate the opportunity of hearing provided to both parties. 7. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to the judgment in the Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case, it was held as follows: “It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The 1 1990(4) SCC 594 4 rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law”. 8. At Para 35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows. “Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by its while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our 1 1990(4) SCC 594 p. 5 opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi- judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the 5 order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge”. 9. In view of the observations of the apex court referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide E file C.No.1003668 Pts.5, dated 30.01.2026 are liable to be set aside. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide E file C.No.1003668 Pts.5, dated 30.01.2026, are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 shall consider the objections of the petitioner objectively and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to respondent No.5 and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per law, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 13.03.2026 TVN p. 6 209 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7034 of 2026 Date: 13.03.2026 TVN