Allowed

Ayyagari Mallikarjuna Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Aug 2021WP/7757/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting a petitioners application under Section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act for issuance of a 13B certificate. The rejection was declared illegal and arbitrary due to the absence of reasons, violating the principles of natural justice, and directed the authority to pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent directed to pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

Ayyagari Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.7757 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is

¶5

filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶6

“…to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus challenging the proceedings vide reference no.RSB1011800016025 dated 12.02.2019 passed by the 4^th respondent without assigning proper reasons passed cryptic order in disposing of the application filed under Form X of Section 5A of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 for issuance of 13B certificate of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 which is governed by G.O.M.S.No.321 dated 21.06.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the 4^th respondent to pass reasoned order by hearing concerned parties for making entries in Form 1 and 1B of the Act and issue Pattadar Passbooks and Title deeds in favour of the petitioner...”

¶7

The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner is absolute possessor and enjoyer of land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.552/1, Vinjamur Village, Vinjamur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The said land was purchased through unregistered agreement of sale, dated 26.05.1989 from Bayapureddy Rama Kota Reddy and Bayapureddy Bala Subba Reddy. Since the date of purchase the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interference from anybody by raising seasonal crops. In the year, 1989, 1^st respondent has pop up Section 5A of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ‘The Act’) to regularize certain alienations and

¶8

¶9

transfers of lands. Section 5A of the Act contemplates that the petitioner shall make an application under Form X of the Rule 22 of the A.P.Pattadar Passbooks Rules. The 1^st respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.321, dated 21.06.2018, extending the time limit upto 45 days from the date of the issuance of orders to receive the Form X applications. On such, the petitioner has submitted Form X application to the 4^th respondent on 18.07.2018 under Rule 22 of A.P.Pattadar Passbooks Rules. In pursuance of the application submitted by the petitioner, 4^th respondent issued notice in Form XI under Rules prescribed and accordingly, the transferor appeared before 4^th respondent and reported no objection to the petitioner and gave statement in the prescribed format informing that he sold the subject property. The 4^th respondent also issued Form XII to all the interested persons and witness statements also recorded in the village. Thereafter, despite repeated requests by the petitioner, the 4^th respondent has not disclosed the status of the application. According to the application, dated 05.02.2021, to the 4^th respondent under Right to Information Act, the petitioner came to know that Form X application submitted by the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, the order of rejection is now challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the administrative authorities must have passed a reasoned order, since it is an appealable order under the provisions of the Act, but no such reasoned order is passed, except the order impugned in the writ petition, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to issue a direction to the 4^th respondent.

¶10

¶11

During hearing Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, 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 4^th respondent, since the order passed by the 4^th respondent is appealable and requested to issue appropriate direction to the authorities.

¶12

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.

¶13

5. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works

¶14

Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers¹ it is held as follows:-

¶15

"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

¶16

1 (2010) 4 SCC 785

¶17

¶18

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”.

¶19

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 rejected in column Status 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.

¶20

Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition is declared as contrary to the law laid down in the judgment referred above, illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition is hereby set aside while directing respondent No.4 to pass a reasoned order within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

_______________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶25

Date: 18.08.2021 SPP

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.7757 OF 2021

¶29