IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of recording reasons in judicial decisions, asserting that non-compliance violates principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

(J. Sreenivas Rao, J.)

1. This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

"...to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order declaring the proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein bearing Nos.E3/E5/7996/2015, dated 11.01.2019 and File No.A/8544/12, dated 17.10.2015, respectively as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Record of Rights in Lands and Pattadar pass Books Act, 1971 as amended 1989 and in violation of constitutional Mandates specially equality before law and equal protection of law and liable to be declared as vitiated and bad in the eye of law..."

2. Heard Sri Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Shashank Garige, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 - Late Kasarla Yadagiri is husband of petitioner No.2 and father of petitioner Nos.3 to 6. During his life time he had purchased property to an extent of Acs.2.08 guntas covered by Survey No.134/1 and 134/2 situated at Vangapahad (V), Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District through Sada sale deed from Kasarla Durgaiah on 20.05.1972. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the above said sada sale deed was regularized by then Tahsildar, Hasanparty Mandal after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971(Act for brevity). Pursuant to the same, respondent No.4 issued 13(B) Proceedings vide No.B/1273/10 dated 02.04.2011 and his name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deed was issued in his favour in the year 2011.

3.1. Questioning the same, respondent No.5 filed appeal No.A/5844/2012 before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 without properly considering the contentions of the petitioners allowed the appeal by its order dated 17.10.2015. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner No.1 filed Revision Petition No.E3/E5/7996/2015, before respondent No.2, invoking the provisions of Section 9 of Act. During the pendency of the said revision petition, petitioner No.1 died and petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were impleaded as his legal heirs. He further contended that respondent No.2 without properly considering the contentions of the petitioners dismissed the revision petition by its order dated 11.01.2019.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that regularization proceedings were issued in favour of the petitioner No.1 on 02.04.2011. Respondent No.5 filed statutory appeal before respondent No.3 after expiry of long period of two years even without explaining any reasons and without filing any condonation of delay application. Hence, respondent No.3 is not having any authority and jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal in the absence of condonation of delay. He further contended that respondent No.3 without considering the same, allowed the appeal on 17.10.2015. The petitioner specifically pleaded the above said grounds as well as other grounds in the revision petition before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 also, without considering the same, simply confirmed the order of respondent No.3 and without giving any reasons passed cryptic order and the same is contrary to law.

4. Per contra, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 submits that the then Tahsildar issued 13(B) proceedings on 02.04.2011 in favour of petitioner No.1 without issuing notice and opportunity to respondent No.5. He further contended that the original pattadar namely Kasarla Durgaiah had never alienated the subject property nor executed the alleged sada sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 - Kasarla Yadagiri and the petitioners have not produced the said document before any authority till date.

4.