APHC010268762024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 13359/2024 Between: 1. KOMARA RAVI KUMAR, S/O. KOMARA RAJU, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-19-14, ADARSA NAGAR, PEDAWALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530017. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BUILDING-1, FIRST FLOOR, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, KRISHNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, MAHARANIPETA VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530002. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL MANDAL, D.NO- Q86QPLUSW85, VISHALAKSHI NAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530045. 5. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, R936PLUS5RH 100FT ROAD, MIDHILAPURI VUDA COLONY, P.M.PALEM, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530041. 2 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue any writ, order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in computer No. 366946/2024/E3 dt 19-03-2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the 5th respondent to entertain registrations in respect of petitioner’s land situated in an extent of 460 Sq yards in Sy. No. 15/10, Mudasaralova Village, Visakhapatnam District with out referring prohibited list pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Computer No.366946/2024/E3, dated 19.03.2024, are illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to set aside the same. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned orders are in non- compliance with the orders of this Court in W.P. No.31469 of 2023, dated 07.12.2023. Though the 2nd respondent extracted the order dated 07.12.2023 passed in W.P. No.31469 of 2023 in the impugned order dated 19.03.2024, the said directions were not complied with, as no proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 4. Initially, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 20.01.2024 directing the petitioner and the 4th respondent to appear on 27.01.2024. Thereafter, another notice dated 01.02.2024 was issued directing their appearance on 09.02.2024. Subsequently, a notice dated 09.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner directing him to appear on 16.02.2024. The 2nd respondent also strictly directed the 4th respondent to appear on 16.02.2024 along with connected records and to submit a detailed report covering all aspects on or before 12.02.2024. Accordingly, the 4th respondent conducted an enquiry and 4 submitted a report, a copy of which was furnished to the petitioner, thereby providing him an opportunity to submit his objections. 5. At the hearing held on 16.02.2024, the petitioner submitted his objections to the report of the 4th respondent, specifically contending that the said report was prepared solely on the basis of adangals and that the Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA) was not taken into consideration. 6. However, thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2024. The impugned order discloses that the petitioner’s objections and the report of the 4th respondent were referred to the 3rd respondent for a comprehensive enquiry. The 3rd respondent submitted a report dated 15.03.2024, and based on the said report, the impugned order was passed, wherein it was stated that as per the SFA of Mudasarlova Village, the entire extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.32 cents in Sy. No.15/10 is classified as Government land – Gayalu and recorded as Poramboke-AWD. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that with regard to the SFA of Mudasarlova Village, he had earlier sought the SFA report, and the matter was carried up to the then Commissioner, CCLA. The office of the 4th respondent had categorically stated that such SFA report was not available. 8. In such circumstances, when the 3rd respondent submitted a report allegedly based on the SFA, the respondent authorities ought to have furnished a copy of the said report along with the SFA relied upon to the 5 petitioner, enabling him to submit his objections before passing the impugned orders. 9. A perusal of the notices as well as the impugned order shows that the last hearing took place on 16.02.2024, i.e., after submission of the report by the 4th respondent. However, after submission of the report by the 3rd respondent, no further hearing was conducted, nor was the said report furnished to the petitioner. 10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has made his submissions as per the counter affidavit, stating that the respondent authorities, after considering the report of the 3rd respondent, rejected the petitioner’s claim vide the impugned proceedings dated 19.03.2024. However, the counter affidavit is silent with regard to affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after receipt of the report of the 3rd respondent. 11. In fact, while disposing of W.P. No.31469 of 2023, by order dated 07.12.2023, this Court specifically directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s application dated 04.07.2023 in accordance with law, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order. In the present case, once the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the 3rd respondent for a comprehensive enquiry, the 2nd respondent ought to have furnished a copy of the report to the petitioner and, after receiving his objections and hearing him, should have pass appropriate orders. 6 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and considering the observations of this Court in W.P. No.31469 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023, the impugned orders dated 19.03.2024 are set aside. The 2nd respondent is granted liberty to furnish a copy of the report of the 3rd respondent dated 15.03.2024 to the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After affording an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall pass appropriate and reasoned orders within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. 13. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 5th January, 2026 cbn 7 380 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH Writ Petition No.13359 of 2024 5th January, 2026 cbn