ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders in Prodg. No.A4/CPC/1209/2020 dated 18.12.2021 passed by respondent No.4 to the extent of Order at Para No.12, Point Nos.1 and 2, as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive, ultra vires and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the above order issued by respondent No.4 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.2-07 guntas in Sy.No.41/E situated at Morkandi Village of Bazarhathnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. 2. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6. In spite of service of notices to respondent Nos.7 to 11, they have not chosen to enter into appearance. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring to an extent of Acs.2-07 Gts., in Sy.No.41/E, Acs.2-07 Gts., in Sy.No.41/E/1 and Acs.2-07 Gts., in Sy.No.41/E/2, situated at Morkhandi Village of Bazarhathnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. When the respondents 7 to 11 try to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land, he filed Agency Suit before respondent No.5 under the Telangana Agency Rules, 1924, for grant of permanent injunction and the same was rejected by its Proceedings No. A/175/2018 dated 26.09.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.4 vide Agency Appeal No.A4/CPC/2019/2020 and the said appeal was also dismissed by its order dated 29.05.2021 without considering the grounds raised in the appeal and without issuing any reasons. 5. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioner filed W.P. No.14378 of 2021 before this Court and the same was allowed and remitted the matter to respondent No.4 with a direction to decide the suit in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties by its order dated 28.06.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4, without properly considering the contentions of the petitioner, the material evidence on record, passed the impugned order on 18.12.2021. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder: ORDER “12. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4, without properly considering the contentions of the petitioner, the material evidence on record, passed the impugned order on 18.12.2021. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder: ORDER “12. Based on the arguments submitted during the hearing of the case and above findings this Court orders that: 1. There is no merit in the sale transaction as alleged by the appellant. 2. There is no reason to interfere with the orders passed by Hon’ble High Court W.P.No.14378 of 2021, dt. 28.06.2021. 3. has gone into the issue in detail and has arrived at a correct conclusion. 4. The present appeal is therefore the appeal is allowed and the concerned Tahsildar is directed to take action. 5. Hence this case is closed.” 7. After going through the above impugned order, it reveals that the respondent No.4 stated that there is no merit in the sale transaction as alleged by the petitioner and he further stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order passed by respondent No.4 is inconsistent and does not convey any meaning. This Court while setting aside the orders dated 29.05.2021 passed by respondent No.4 specifically directed the respondent No.4 to consider the claim of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.7 to 11 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Respondent No.4 passed the impugned order without giving any reasons, much less valid reasons. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.4 while adjudicating the dispute by invoking the powers conferred under the Provisions of Agency Rules, ought to have considered the contentions of the respective parties, evidence on record and ought to have given valid reasons. 9. Whereas, the respondent No.4 has not given any reasons in support of the impugned order and the same is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law. It is settled principles of law that quasi-judicial authorities or judicial authorities or administrative authorities while passing orders reasons must be recorded. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India, 1990 AIR 1984 held that administrative action must be supported by reasons and the reasons must be recorded except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. 11. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India, 1990 AIR 1984 held that administrative action must be supported by reasons and the reasons must be recorded except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. 11. It is already stated supra that respondent No.4 while adjudicating the dispute by exercising powers conferred under the provisions of Agency Rules, 1924 ought to have recorded the reasons. Hence, the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 passed by respondent No.4 is not only a clear violation of the principles of natural justice but also contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside and respondent No.4 is directed to consider the contentions of the parties, material evidence on record and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and respondents 7 to 11, including personal hearing, by giving valid reasons within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of subject property. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the writ petition shall stand closed.