IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5023 of 2003 Between: Atluri Prabhavathi @ Sati Anasuya, W/o Satyanarayana, R/o Dhoramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 Agent to the Government cum District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Special Deputy Collector,(Tribal Welfar), Kotaramachandrapuram, West Godavari District. 4 The Special Deputy Tahasildar (Tribal Welfar) No.II, Kotaramachandrapuram, West Godavari District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari (i) Calling for the records in SR No.154/96 and 751/82 from the ﬁle of 3rd respondent and appeal and revision records arose there from; (ii) Setting aside the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 16-9- 1997 in SR No.154/96 as conﬁrmed in SRA No.20/97 by the 2nd respondent and by G.O.Ms.No.117 dated 5-11-2002 by the Ist respondent; (iii) Directing restoration of land of ACs.7.71 cents equivalent to 3.12 hectares in RS No.220 of Antervedigudem Revenue Village of Buttaigudem Mandal, west Godavari District to the petitioner or in alternative award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest from the date of deprival of possession payable to the petitioner by the respondents and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5023 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be absolute owner of agricultural property admeasuring Acs.7.71 in Survey No.220 situated at Antervedigudem Revenue Village, Buttaigudem Mandal in West Godavari District, which is agency area. It appears that on a complaint ﬁled by the fourth respondent, the third respondent initiated action under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (hereafter called, the Regulations), as amended by Regulation No.1 of 1970. The same, being S.R.No.751 of 1982, was decided in favour of the petitioner and the complaint ﬁled by the fourth respondent was dismissed by a common order dated 23.07.1985. It has become ﬁnal. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for ryotwari patta under the Andhra Pradesh (Schedules Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation, 1970, for grant of ryotwari patta, and ultimately, Director of Settlements granted patta to her by order made in A.P.No.45/87-G2. Yet again, fourth respondent ﬁled another complaint, being S.R.No.154 of 1996. Third respondent after conducting enquiry passed orders against the petitioner ordering ejectment. The petitioner was unsuccessful before the appellate authority as well as revisional authority – respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. This writ petition is ﬁled against the order of the ﬁrst respondent in G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 05.11.2002, whereby and whereuner the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is devoid of any reasons, and therefore, liable to be set aside. Secondly, he submits that when the plea of res judicata was taken based on the earlier orders passed by third respondent on 23.07.1985 in S.R.No.751 of 1982, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not even adverted to, and passed the orders without applying the mind. He placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gontureddy Nageswara Rao v Government of Andhra Pradesh[1] and another judgment of this Court in Bondala Reddiyya v Agent to Government[2]. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that the Government gave valid reasons and the suﬃciency thereof cannot be gone into in the writ petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, when reasons are given by a quasi judicial authority in support of the conclusions, ordinarily, the Court of judicial review cannot go into adequacy or suﬃciency of the reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by the decision maker. However, if reasons are perverse or not based on the evidence, it would be certainly an error in law apparent on the face of the record warranting judicial review. In this case, however, situation is diﬀerent. The petitioner has speciﬁcally taken the plea of res judicata and the same was not even considered. Furthermore, while dismissing the revision petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Government has not given any reasons except observing that the lower authorities have passed orders correctly. Such an approach by quasi judicial authority is not compliant with the requirement of law. Furthermore, as held by this Court in Bondala Reddiyya (supra), subject to certain conditions, the earlier orders operate as res judicata. But, the same being question of fact and law it is for the fact ﬁnding authority to go into the matter and decide the same. The Government while disposing of the revision petition has not adverted to the plea of res judicata, and therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the matter should be remitted again for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the ﬁrst respondent with a direction to dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the two judgments referred to hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.11.2008 vs To 1 The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 Agent to the Government cum District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Special Deputy Collector,(Tribal Welfar), Kotaramachandrapuram, West Godavari District. 4 The Special Deputy Tahasildar (Tribal Welfar) No.II, Kotaramachandrapuram, West Godavari District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 6 2CCs to G.P for Social Welfare, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. 7 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA} [1] 2007 (6) ALD 621 [2] 2007 (6) ALD 165