IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20262 of 1997 Between: 1 Marena S/o Chinna Bhimappa R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 2 Boya Obulappa S/o Obanna R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 3 Ramana S/o Kalanna Goudu R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 4 Borika Naganna s/o Malklaiah R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 5 Chakali Yennappa S/o Mukkadappa R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 6 Yerriswamy S/o Kundarpamma R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 7 Hanumanthu s/o Bheemanna R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 8 Ramakka D/o Ulemma R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 9 Vannurappa W/o Kallanna R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 10 Vade Nagireddi S/o Nagappa R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 11 Barika Mallaiah S/o China Thimmappa R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 12 Akula Basappa S/o Nagappa R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 13 Ramanna S/o Nagappa R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. 14 Ramakka W/o Kuruba Kallappa R/o Hanakanahal Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur district. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthpur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. 3 The Joint Collector, Anantapur District. 4 The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 5 The Governmen of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (Assignment) Department,Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad. 6 Koppala Govindappa S/o Muryalappa, Hanakanahal Village, Anatapur District. 7 Koppala Ramakrishna Reddy S/o Ramappa Hanakanahal Village, Anantapur District 8 Koppala Thippanna S/o Mutyalappa Hanakanahal Village, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,order or a direction mostly one which is in the nature of " Writ of Mandamus" declaring the Memo No. 30799/AsnIV(1)/89 ,dt.26-5-1997 of the 5th respondnet as illegal,irregular,arbitrary,unjustified,malafide unsustainable and set aside the same holding that the petitioners are entitled to retain the house site plots assigned to them in survey no.483-B2 of Hanakanahal village, Kanekal mandal, Anantapur district by the 1st Respondent on 24-7-1985 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20262 OF 1997 ORDER: The order impugned in the Writ Petition is the Memo of the Government No.30799/Assn.IV(1)/89, dated 26.05.1997, whereby the Government directed that the land in question be allotted to the respondents herein on payment of market value as per rules and that a detailed report in the matter be submitted to the Government for taking final action. After noting the factual background of the case and the contentions raised both by the petitioner herein and by the respondents in paragraphs 2 to 13 of the order, the respondent noted in paragraph No.14 as under: “Heard the arguments of both the Counsels and perused the record. Having regard to the contentions raised by both the Counsels and as per the directions of the High Court in its order dated 18-9-92 in Writ Petition No.4407/92 filed by the petitioner Government direct that the land in question may be allotted to the petitioners Sri K.Govindappa and 3 others on payment of market value as per rules and detailed report in the matter may be submitted to Government for taking final action”. No reasons whatsoever have been given by the Government in support of its decision to allot the land to the respondents herein. The impugned order is bereft of reasons and as such, must be set aside. Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents would seek to canvass their case on merits. I am not inclined, however, to conduct an investigation into the facts of the case since this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over decisions of the Government and is only required to examine whether the decision making process is in accordance with law. In the case on hand, since the Government has not assigned any reason whatsoever for its decision to allot land to the respondents, it is evident that the order is bereft of reasons and, consequently, the decision making process stands vitiated. The impugned order is quashed. Needless to state that quashing of the order will not preclude the Government from passing an order afresh in accordance with law, after assigning detailed reasons for its decision. It shall also be open to both the parties herein to put- forth their grievance before the respondents. The W.P. is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 07.08.2008 GS