ORDER : Heard Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned endorsement in Rc.No.2565/2018/E3, dated 21.09.2024 passed by the 2 nd respondent in refusing to delete the petitioners? land in Sy.No.171-5 admeasuring Ac.1-52 cents situated in Bellupada Village, Ichapram Mandal from the Annexure-II of Sec.22(A)(1)(B) list contrary to the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.14663/2019, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the impugned endorsement in Rc.No.2565/2018/E3 dated 21.09.2024 with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to delete the petitioners? land in Sy.No.171-5 (old Sy.No.871) admeasuring Ac.1-52 cents from the Annexure-II of Sec.22(A)(1)(B) list and to pass…” 2. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has brought it to the notice of this Court the earlier litigations and the Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14663/2019, dated 08.08.2023. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition of the Writ Petitioners herein, had directed the District Collector/Respondent No.2 to consider the Report placed before the Authority and if necessary, afford an opportunity to the Petitioners and pass appropriate reasoned Order within a period of six weeks. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that since there is inaction on the part of the Respondent No.2 in complying with the direction of this Court in W.P.No.14663/2019, the Writ Petitioners were constrained to file Contempt Case bearing C.C.No.3623/2024. The Contempt Case bearing C.C.No.3623/2024 was disposed of on 18.10.2024, closing the said Contempt Case in view of the subsequent developments. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 21.09.2024, which is impugned herein, is prima facie perverse in as much as the Respondent No.2 had once again not considered the Proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2018 (Ex.P5). 3. Sri Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted revised Reports on 09.01.2024 and 19.09.2024 respectively, which are shown as Reference Nos.11 and 12 in the Impugned Order. 3. Sri Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted revised Reports on 09.01.2024 and 19.09.2024 respectively, which are shown as Reference Nos.11 and 12 in the Impugned Order. He would submit that the present Writ Petition is misconceived inasmuch as the Appeal/Revision lies before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA). 4. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that these revised Reports were never put to the Writ Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has submitted that such Reports were neither furnished to the Writ Petitioners nor was any opportunity was given to the Writ Petitioners to respond on such Reports. 5. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners had submitted that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing the Impugned Endorsement, and therefore, Writ would lie. 6. This Court has considered the Endorsement. Although Notices were issued to the Writ Petitioners and an opportunity was provided vide Reference No.6 in the Endorsement dated 20.11.2023, the Impugned Order does not indicate anywhere that the documents referred in Reference Nos.11 and 12, which are cited in the Impugned Order, were never supplied to the Writ Petitioners. On specific query made by the Court, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners also confirmed the fact that the Report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 09.01.2024 and the Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 19.09.2024 were never supplied to the Writ Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that if the said Reports were against the Writ Petitioners, it is incumbent on the part of the Respondent No.2 to have furnished a copy of such Reports and seek response of the Writ Petitioners before passing the Impugned Order. 7. Having considered these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Endorsement suffers from the vice of non- adherence to the principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as the District Collector has failed to supply the copies of Reports of Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 09.01.2024 and 19.09.2024 respectively, to the Writ Petitioners. There is also failure of principles of Natural Justice on the part of the District Collector in not seeking any response from the Writ Petitioners before passing the Impugned Order. 8. There is also failure of principles of Natural Justice on the part of the District Collector in not seeking any response from the Writ Petitioners before passing the Impugned Order. 8. It is trite law that the executive is duty bound to follow the principles of Natural Justice even if no procedure is contemplated under the statute (Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, [1978 AIR 597]). 9. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B.Karunakar and others , [ (1993) 4 SCC 727 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has come down heavily for non-adherence to principles of Natural Justice where the Enquiry Reports were not supplied to the affected party. In para 30, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “Hence the incidental questions raised above may be answered as follows: [i] Since the denial of the report of the enquiry officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice, it follows that the statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject. [ii] The relevant portion of Article 311(2) of the Constitution is as follows: (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.? Thus the article makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before the employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The article, however, cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded. The procedure to be followed in awarding other punishments is laid down in the service rules governing the employee. What is further, Article 311(2) applies only to members of the civil services of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or to the holders of the civil posts under the Union or a State. In the matter of all punishments both Government servants and others are governed by their service rules. What is further, Article 311(2) applies only to members of the civil services of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or to the holders of the civil posts under the Union or a State. In the matter of all punishments both Government servants and others are governed by their service rules. Whenever, therefore, the service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded and when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the enquiry officer's report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment. [iii] Since it is the right of the employee to have the report to defend himself effectively and he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favour or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right. Whether, therefore, the employee asks for the report or not, the report has to be furnished to him. (iv) XXX (v) XXX” 10. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Jayachandran.V vs. State of Kerala, [2022 SCC Online Ker 3086] had dealt with the situation where there is no specific Rule in the Kerala Police Departmental Enquiries, Punishments and Appeal Rules to supply enquiry report. It is held by the Division Bench that the absence of rule mandating supply of a report does not stand to the test of Article 14. The Division Bench, in para 8 of the Judgment, held as under: “The argument on the side of the Government before the Tribunal that there is no specific rule in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules to give enquiry report at the stage of drawing up of the same to the delinquent cannot be accepted at all. The right to receive the report is considered as the essential part of reasonable opportunity to be extended to the person affected by the report and a refusal to furnish the report amounts to denial of the right to defend himself and to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings. Even if such right is not explicitly stated in the regulations or statute, that right being a fundamental and essential part of the natural justice, must be read into every regulation or rules. Even if such right is not explicitly stated in the regulations or statute, that right being a fundamental and essential part of the natural justice, must be read into every regulation or rules. There is nothing in the rules aforesaid which excludes the operation of the principle of natural justice entitling the delinquent to be served with a copy of the enquiry report before accepting the report or proposing a punishment. It is trite that the principles of natural justice must be read into the unoccupied interstices of the statute/rules or regulations unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary.” 11. In Deepak Ananda Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [ (2023) 11 SCC 130 ] Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material, unless such material is supplied to the person against whom it is sought to be utilized. In para Nos.18 and 19 of the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “18. It is a well-established principle of Administrative Law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents extensively, M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain's treatise on Principles of Administrative Law, M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (LexisNexis, 8th Edn. at pp. 490-91. notes that: "If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings.? (emphasis supplied) 19. In T. Takano v. SEBI, (2022) 8 SCC 162 : (2022) 4 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 306 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a part (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.), discussed the line of cases of this Court on the duty to disclose investigative material. The Court analysed the ratio in Natwar Singh v. Enforcement Directorate, (2010) 13 SCC 255 , Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India, (1974) 4 SCC 374 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 329 , Khudiram Das v. State of W.B., (1975) 2 SCC 81 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 435, Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 612 , ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184, State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, [ (1996) 3 SCC 364 ], State of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, (2002) 3 SCC 443 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 413, Kothari Filaments v. Commr. of Customs, (2009) 2 SCC 192 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 705, and noted that :(T. Takano case(supra) SCC p. 198, para 50) ‘50. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: 50.1. A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication; and 50.2. of Customs, (2009) 2 SCC 192 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 705, and noted that :(T. Takano case(supra) SCC p. 198, para 50) ‘50. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: 50.1. A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication; and 50.2. An ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In all reasonable probability, such material would have influenced the decision reached by the authority. 50.3. Thus, the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure.? (emphasis supplied)” 12. Admittedly, the Reports of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, as mentioned above, were not supplied to the Writ Petitioners. Admittedly, the District Collector/Respondent No.2 has not informed any remarks or response from the Writ Petitioners insofar as the Reports of Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer that form the basis of the Impugned Endorsement dated 21.09.2024 (Ex.P1). In this view of the matter, the Endorsement dated 21.09.2024 (Ex.P1) suffers from vice of violation of principles of Natural Justice. Accordingly, the Endorsement dated 21.09.2024 (Ex.P1) is set aside. 13. There shall be a direction the Respondent No.2 to conduct de-novo enquiry on the Application(s) made by the Writ Petitioners for deletion of the properties from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22(A)(1)(B). Before undertaking any enquiry, the Respondent No.2 is directed to furnish copies of Reports submitted by the Tahsildar bearing Rc.No.301/2023 A, dated 09.01.2024 and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer bearing Rc.No.1576/2023/DT, dated 19.09.2024 to the Writ Petitioners in advance and seek response from the Writ Petitioners. 14. Needless to state that the Respondent No.2 is statutorily obligated to adhere to the principles of Natural Justice by issuing advance Notices of hearing to the Writ Petitioners, consider their submissions/objections and documents, if any, before passing the final order. 15. 14. Needless to state that the Respondent No.2 is statutorily obligated to adhere to the principles of Natural Justice by issuing advance Notices of hearing to the Writ Petitioners, consider their submissions/objections and documents, if any, before passing the final order. 15. Having regard to the fact that the present issue has already undergone two rounds of litigation, there shall be a direction to the Respondent No.2 to pass fresh Orders in accordance with law within a period of fourteen (14) weeks from today and supply a copy of such Order to the Writ Petitioners herein. 16. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands Allowed. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.