Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 512 (AP)

Makina Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-08-06

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- “… to issue an order/direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th Respondent Tahsildar in deleting the names of petitioner’s father i.e., Makina Satyanarayana Satyampathrudu and his paternal aunt Pilla Lakshminarasamma as pattadars of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac 1-32 cents in Survey No.85/3 Ac 0-88 cents in Survey No.87/10; Ac 0-82 cents in Survey No.88/19 and Ac 1-06 cents in Survey No.92/8 total extent of Ac 4-08 cents situated at Ramavaram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and incorporating the names of un- official respondents herein as pattadars of the above lands and further action of 4th Respondent Tahsildar in rejecting the Online Applications submitted by the petitioner though online vide Receipts Dated 21.01.2021 and 03.02.2021 refusing to issue Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed by recording the petitioner’s name as pattadar of the above lands, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void beside violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the same directing the Respondent Authorities herein to issue Pattadar Pass Book Title Deed by recording the name of the petitioner as pattadar of the above lands and to pass such other orders….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father by name Makena Satyam Pathrudu and paternal aunt Pilla Koteswaramma were the pattadars of the subject land and their names have been recorded in the SFA Register, but taking advantage of the petitioners absence from the village for a considerable period, the respondents deleted the names of the pattadars and recorded the names of the respondents as pattadars. The petitioner made a request through online on 21.01.2021 to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to issue pattadar passbook and title deed by recording his name as pattadar of the subject land. However, the Tahsildar rejected the petitioner’s request through Online without issuing any notice. As per the advice of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, the petitioner once again applied through Online on 03.02.2021, but the same was also rejected by the 4th respondent- Tahsildar once again dated 23.03.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 24.04.2021 to the 4th respondent by enclosing the Xerox copies of extracts from the Settlement fair Adangal in respect of the above lands showing his father and his sister PIlla Lakshminarasamma as pattadars. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 24.04.2021 to the 4th respondent by enclosing the Xerox copies of extracts from the Settlement fair Adangal in respect of the above lands showing his father and his sister PIlla Lakshminarasamma as pattadars. But the 4th respondent has not taken any action till date. Hence, the present writ petition requested to issue a direction to the 4th respondent. 3. During hearing Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that reasoned order is required to be passed by the 4th respondent, since the order passed by the 4th respondent is appealable and requested to issue appropriate direction to the authorities. 4. Admittedly, an application was made by the petitioner, the same was rejected, but no reason was assigned in the order impugned in the writ petition except mentioning as ‘rejected’ in the columns meant for ‘status’ and ‘remarks’. Therefore, no reason is assigned enabling the petitioner to prefer an appeal by raising specific grounds. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 wherein it is held as follows:- "13. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders”. 6. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders”. 6. The main requirement to sustain the order passed by any administrative order or an order passed by quasi- judicial authority is the reasoning, but in the present case, except submitting a proforma filling the blanks, no reason is assigned for the proposed action, except recommend/reject, no reason is disclosed in the order and it is understandable to any individual, except the result of rejection/recommendation in column No.3 of the order impugned in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the order passed if any without disclosing the reason for passing such order is illegal and it is difficult for the party to know the reason for rejection. Apart from that the reason recorded in the order is guide to the appellate authority or Court either to sustain or to set aside the order. Therefore, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is totally bereft of any reason much less satisfactory reason. Hence, it is in contrary to the principles of natural justice. 7. Hence, the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the Online applications through Online vide receipts dated 21.01.2021 and 03.02.2021 refusing to issue pattadar passbook and title deed by recording the petitioner name as pattadar of the above lands is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the 4th respondent is directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.