IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14533 of 2001 Between: Vechalapu Ramamurthy Naidu S/o Mutyalanaidu R/o Neelakantarajapuram, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Collector, Vizianagaram. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Vepada, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.BALA SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled to quash proceedings R.C.No.4107/94 F.2 dated 21-04-2001 of respondent No.1, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.3. The petitioner, who claimed his rights over certain lands in Survey Nos.9/3, 16/4, 13/6 and 17/1 (P) of Ballaruki Tuni Kasapathi Raju Puram (B.T.K.R.Puram) Agraharam, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram District through sale deed dated 30-03- 1926 under which his grandfather purchased the said properties from the inamdars of the Village, ﬁled an appeal under Board Standing Order 34-D before respondent No.2 against classiﬁcation of the said lands as ‘assessed waste dry’ in settlement accounts. Respondent No.2, after going through the entire record including the registered sale deeds standing in the names of the petitioner’s forefathers, by a well-reasoned order, held that the lands covered by Survey Nos.16/2, 17/1 and 2 (new) were wrongly classiﬁed as ‘assessed waste dry (AWD)’ in survey operations and directed that the said lands should be classiﬁed as ‘ryoti dry’ and included in the petitioner’s patta. On the appeal ﬁled by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 set aside the said order. A perusal of the said order of respondent No.1 shows that he failed to go into the detailed reasoning given by respondent No.2 and set aside his order with a cryptic observation that the recorded evidence produced by the petitioner with regard to the case and the records do not disclose his rightful ownership and title over the lands and that the records do not pertain to the lands as they stand on the ground. The reasons given by respondent No.1, in upsetting the detailed order passed by respondent No.2, are woefully inadequate. The law is well settled that necessity to give reasons is impelled by principles of natural justice and absence of reasons vitiates the entire order as being violative of principles of natural justice (see Katamreddi Vasundhara v. Joint Collector, Ananthapur and others[1]). On the premise as above, the order of respondent No.1 is set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.1 to pass a fresh reasoned order, after hearing the petitioner and on the basis of the available records. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th September, 2008 vrn [1] 2008 (4) ALD 539