THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1711 OF 2010 DATED: 03-03-2011. Between Aithala Masi Reddy … Petitioner And 1.Koluvula Pedda Yellappa and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1711 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed aggrieved by the order, dated 23-03-2010, in case No.F1/06/2003, on the file of the learned Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, in setting aside the order , dated 11-08-2003 in File No.B/3582/1994 (B/2101/99) passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Koilkonda. 2. The impugned order reads thus: “Perused the record. It is an admitted fact that Kaluvula Baladu was the Protected Tenant of the suit land and as per the extracts of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, Pahani for the years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, the P.T. was in possession of the suit land along with one Abdul Gafoor. Thereby, obviously there was no oral surrender of P.T. rights before 4-2-1954 (date of Act 3 of 1954). The observation of the lower Court that the petitioners have relinquished their rights and abandoned the possession long back say in the year 1973 and never claim till 1994. In the present case, as per the lower Court record, there was no surrender of tenancy rights by oral or in writing and substantially not proved that the P.T. rights stand extinguished. Under the above circumstances, I find that the lower Court has devoid A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.” Except mentioning above, there is no appreciation of material on record at all by the learned Joint Collector. It seems the respondents have signed the agreement of sale, which said to have been entered into between the petitioner and the original landlord and thereafter, the petitioner also purchased the land by way of registered sale deed in pursuance of the agreement of sale in the year 1974. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has developed the land by digging a well as well as by taking necessary electricity connection by incurring huge expenditure. It is also the case of the petitioner that when the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession, he filed the suit for injunction and the respondents said to have filed written statement duly relinquishing their right in the disputed property and in pursuance thereof, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. 4. What is the effect of admission made by the respondents in the written statement in the suit has not been considered by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, whereas it has been clearly considered by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Koilkonda, in his order. Therefore, by non- application of mind, the impugned order has been passed. The order under challenge does not contain any reasons as to under what circumstances, the order of the primary authority has to be set aside. Right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system. When the Joint Collector is exercising quasi-judicial function, he is expected to record the reasons in setting aside the order of the primary authority, which contain elaborate discussion of the issue involved. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, the matter is remanded to the learned Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, to consider the case afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 03-03-2011 Hsd