The executive must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing affected parties with relevant material and an opportunity to respond, even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions.

ORDER :

Heard Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners.

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned endorsement in Rc.No.2565/2018/E3, dated 21.09.2024 passed by the 2^ndrespondent in refusing to delete the petitioners‟ land in Sy.No.171-5 admeasuring Ac.1-52 cents situated in Bellupada Village, Ichapram Mandal from the Annexure-II of Sec.22(A)(1)(B) list contrary to the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.14663/2019, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the impugned endorsement in Rc.No.2565/2018/E3 dated 21.09.2024 with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to delete the petitioners‟ land in Sy.No.171-5 (old Sy.No.871) admeasuring Ac.1-52 cents from the Annexure-II of Sec.22(A)(1)(B) list and to pass…”

2. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has brought it to the notice of this Court the earlier litigations and the Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14663/2019, dated 08.08.2023. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition of the Writ Petitioners herein, had directed the District Collector/Respondent No.2 to consider the Report placed before the Authority and if necessary, afford an opportunity to the Petitioners and pass appropriate reasoned Order within a period of six weeks. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that since there is inaction on the part of the Respondent No.2 in complying with the direction of this Court in W.P.No.14663/2019, the Writ Petitioners were constrained to file Contempt Case bearing C.C.No.3623/2024. The Contempt Case bearing C.C.No.3623/2024 was disposed of on 18.10.2024, closing the said Contempt Case in view of the subsequent developments. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 21.09.2024, which is impugned herein, is prima facie perverse in as much as the Respondent No.2 had once again not considered the Proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2018 (Ex.P5).

3. Sri Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted revised Reports on 09.01.2024 and 19.09.2024 respectively, which are shown as Reference Nos.11 and 12 in the Impugned Order. He would submit that the present Writ Petition is misconceived inasmuch as the Appeal/Revision lies before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA).

4. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that these revised Reports were never put to the Writ Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has submitted that such Reports were neither furnished to the Writ Petitioners nor was any opportunity was given to the Writ Petitioners to respond on such Reports.

5. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners had submitted that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing the Impugned Endorsement, and therefore, Writ would lie.

6. This Court has considered the Endorsement. Although Notices were issued to the Writ Petitioners and an opportunity was provided vide Reference No.6 in the Endorsement dated 20.11.2023, the Impugned Order does not indicate anywhere that the documents referred in Reference Nos.11 and 12, which are cited in the Impugned Order, were never supplied to the Writ Petitioners. On specific query made by the Court, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners also confirmed the fact that the Report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 09.01.2024 and the Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 19.09.2024 were never supplied to the Writ Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner