APHC010687602018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.33222 OF 2018 Between: Ommi Nirmala Kumari, W/o.Appala Raju, Aged 38 years, Resident of Thotagaruvu, Arilova, Chinnagadili Village, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Y.Sudhakar Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue Mr.P.Rama Sharana Sarma The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.4.2018 of respondent No.3 cancelling the patta sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for an extent of 99.03 Sq.yards in Survey No.71–71/81430 of Thotagaruvu, Chinnagadili Village, and the direction to revise the patta for an extent of 67.00 Sq.yards only, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and to set aside the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition with regard to the right / interest and the possession of the petitioner in respect of the above-mentioned land. He submits that 2 the petitioner made an application to the respondent No.6 for sanctioning a building permission for construction of ground floor and first floor in the said land and carried out the construction. He submits that due to political rivalry, the respondent No.7 filed an appeal petition before the respondent No.3 for cancellation of house-site patta in respect of the subject land and by entertaining the same after lapse of ninety (90) days contrary to the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.296, Revenue (Assignment–I) Department, Dated 12.08.2015, the impugned order has been passed. The learned counsel submits that before the respondent No.3, detailed written arguments were filed and without considering the same, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order without assigning any reasons, much less cogent reasons. He submits that non- consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent and reliance on the reports of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 without furnishing copies of the same is violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to law, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 appearing through online made submissions to sustain the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.7 submits that the impugned order is passed after giving opportunity to both sides and there is no violation of principles of natural justice, that the reports obtained on the administrative side is the basis for passing the order impugned in the writ petition and the same is sustainable. He also submits that the respondent No.3 had taken note of the written arguments submitted on both sides and therefore, the order under challenge cannot be found fault 3 with. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made and appreciated the arguments advanced on both sides. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that though the learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the factual aspects, this Court deems it not necessary to refer the same in detail. Suffice to state that the respondent No.7 filed an appeal petition seeking cancellation of the patta by invoking the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.296, Dated 12.08.2015 and this Court is required to examine whether the impugned order is valid or not, more particularly in the light of the submissions to the effect that the impugned order is cryptic and no reasons were assigned for rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner / respondent in the appeal. 6. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the respondent No.3 made reference to the enquiry stated to have been conducted by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and extracted the written arguments filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.7 running into four (4) pages, and without undertaking the exercise of appreciating the contentions advanced on both sides, had simply referred to the reports of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and recorded the conclusions, which reads as follows: I have perused the evidence on record i.e., the Grounds of Appeal Petition and report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and Tahsildar, VSP-R and written arguments filed by both the Petitioner and Respondent along with enclosed copies, it is noticed that the Respondent fails to show the documentary evidence for an extent of 99.03 Sq.yds. Hence, I am of the opinion that the patta sanctioned in favour of Smt. Nirmala Kumari (Respondent) for an extent of 99.03 Sq.yds shall 4 be cancelled and revised patta may be sanctioned for an extent of 67 Sq.yds. 7. The above extracted portion clearly indicates that the impugned order is bereft of reasons and is based on the report of respondent Nos.4 and 5, which according to the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, copies of the same were not furnished. 8. It is a settled position in law that the Authorities concerned are required to state reasons while accepting or rejecting the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties to a proceeding / lis. The reasons are the heart and soul of an order and in the absence of reasons the aggrieved party cannot be expected to raise grounds much less legal contentions before appropriate forum. 9. In Basudev Dutta vs. The State of West Bengal1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the legal position at paragraph 12.2 and 12.6 held as follows: 12.2 It is settled law that every administrative or quasi-judicial order must contain the reasons. Such reasons go a long way in not only ensuring that the authority has applied his mind to the facts and the law, but also provide the grounds for the aggrieved party to assail the order in the manner known to law. In the absence of any reasons, it also possesses a difficulty for the judicial authorities to test the correctness of the order or in other words, exercise its power of judicial review. … 12.6 It is manifestly clear from the above judgments that reasons are heartbeat of every order and every notice must specify the grounds on which the administrative or quasi-judicial authority intends to proceed; if any document is relied upon to form the basis of enquiry, such document must be furnished to the employee; it is only then a meaningful reply can be furnished; and the failure to furnish the documents referred and relied 1 2024 INSC 940 5 in the notice would vitiate the entire proceedings as being arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. … 10. In Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept.2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the reason is the soul of Law. Referring to a catena of judgments in M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No.51 held as follows: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason 2 AIR 1980 SC 1 3 (2010) 9 SCC 496 6 that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 11. In the light of the Law laid by the Apex Court, the order under challenge is not in sustainable in Law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 28.4.2018 of respondent No.3 cancelling the patta sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.3 7 for passing orders afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No.7. Both the parties are at liberty to submit any material, which has bearing on the subject matter land. Till appropriate orders are passed by the respondent No.3, the interim order granted by this Court on 17.9.2018 with regard to subject matter property shall be in force in all respects. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date: 06.01.2026. vasu