IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No : 15297 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1. Smt. Athikayala Rajamma, wife of Balaramnaiah, aged about 50 years, resident of Patakalva Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. …Petitioner And: 1. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. The Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Chittoor. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ……..Respondents. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents 1 and 2 herein in passing the orders in their C.C.L.As. Ref. No.P3/1469/99, dated 3-4-2001 and R.P.No.101/83 H1, dated 31-3-1999 as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Y.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15297 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner is challenging the order of the 1st respondent in the proceedings No.P3/1469/99 dated 3.4.2001. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and occupier of Ac.4-08 cents of land in S.No.50 purchased from one V.Eswaramma and one Chenga Reddy and out of the same, she has been granted a patta to the extent of Ac.2.57 cents and her application for grant of patta for the remaining extent of Ac.1.51 cents is pending consideration. The petitioner alleges that she has submitted an application for granting of patta under Section 11 (a) of the A.P. Andhra Area Estate Abolition Act before the Settlement Officer and by an order dated 15.1.1983, the Settlement Officer has accepted the case of the petitioner. However, at the instance of the District Collector, revision was preferred before the Director of Settlement (Special Commissioner) in R.P.No.101/83/ H1 dated 31-3-1999 and the learned Commissioner under the aforesaid order allowed the said revision. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred further revision to the 1st respondent, which in turn has confirmed the order of the Director. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order of the Director is totally an unreasoned order and the same has been passed without application of mind. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in an order of this nature confirming the order of the Director, it need not contain any elaborate reasons. Having examined the order of the Director as well as the order of the 1st respondent herein, it is evident that the 1st respondent is exercising quasi judicial powers by sitting in revisionary jurisdiction. Therefore, it has to be examined by the 1st respondent whether the orders of his subordinates are in accordance with the object and spirit of the Estates Abolition Act. Then, the 1st respondent has to examine the issue and pass the orders on his own conclusions on merits. But, it is obvious from the order impugned that the same is passed without assigning any reasons. None of the contentions of petitioner are examined and considered nor there is any independent application of mind by the revisional authority. In these circumstances, I feel it a fit case wherein the matter should be remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law by setting aside the order impugned herein. However, it is made clear that if the 1st respondent feels it necessary during the re-hearing of the revision petition that the matter requires to be considered by the lower authority for verification of any factual aspect, it is always open for the 1st respondent to remit the matter further to the lower authority. Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of the 1st respondent. ________________________________ Justice VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 15th December, 2008. Note: Issue CC in one week. BO Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15297 of 2001 Dated 15th December, 2008.