Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Writ Appeal Under Clause 15 Of The ... vs Puvvada Srinivas on 31 March, 2026
Author: Ch. Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
APHC010657102025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3558]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 209/2026
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above-named
appellants prefer this Memorandum of Writ Appeal before this Honble Court
being aggrieved by the Order dated 17.10.2025 in W.P.No.38090 of 2022
rendered by the Learned Single Judge.
Between:
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS,, O/O THE CHIEF
COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, MANGALAGIRI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR,, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. PUVVADA SRINIVAS, S/O LATE BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O D.NO.4112/A, KOTHA AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT.
2. PUWADA MADHUSUDHAN, S/O LATE BHASKARA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO.4112/A, KOTHA AGRAHARAM,
VIZIANAGAAM DISTRICT.
2
...RESPONDENTS
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 17.10.2025 passed in
W.P. No. 38090 of 2022, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal, and pass
Counsel for the Appellants:
1. D YATHINDRA DEV, SPL GOVT PLEADER ATTACHED TO THE
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondents:
1. K CHIDAMBARAM, SENIOR COUNSEL, REPRESENTING RAVULA
NAGARJUNA
Date of Reserve : 24-3-2026
Date of Pronouncement : 31-3-2026
Date of Uploading : 02-4-2026
The Court made the following:
3
Judgment: (per Ch. Manavendranath Roy, J.)
This intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is preferred by
the State against the order dated 17-10-2025 of the learned single Judge
passed in W.P.No.38090 of 2022 whereby he has allowed the writ petition
setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Appeals and confirming the
order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram, directing
the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, to carry out necessary changes in the Revenue
records relating to the nature of the land covered by Old Survey No.74/4 and
present R.S.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.19.00 in Vizianagaram Bit-II.
2. Heard Sri D. Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader,
attached to the office of learned Advocate General for the appellants/State
and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Ravula
Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners.
3. The dispute and controversy involved in this appeal essentially
pertains to classification and nature of the land which is in an extent of
Ac.19.00 covered by Old Survey No.74/4 and present Survey No.180/1 situate
in Vizianagaram Bit-II in Vizianagaram Mandal.
4. Facts germane to adjudicate the lis in this appeal may briefly be
delineated as follows:
(a) There is a vast extent of land covered by Old Survey No.74 situate
in Vizianagaram Bit-II in Vizianagaram Mandal. The said land was sub-
divided into various Survey numbers. The subject land, which is in dispute in
this appeal, is part of the said vast extent of land covered by Survey No.74.
The subject land is in an extent of Ac.19.00 covered by Old Survey No.74/4
and present Survey No.180/1. According to the writ petitioners, who are the
respondents herein, it was originally an inam dry land and it was classified in
the pre-abolition records also as inam dry land. Subsequently, a ryotwari
patta was issued in respect of the said land to the erstwhile owners of the said
land in the year 1960. It is their case that their mother Smt. Puvvada
4
Anjaneyulu purchased the said land, which is in an extent of Ac.19.00 covered
by Old Survey No.74/4 and present Survey No.180/1 from a person, by name
Sri Penmatsa Venkatapathi Raju and others under a registered sale deed
bearing No.2486/1965 and her vendors also purchased the said land from the
erstwhile owners of the said land in the year 1963 under two different
registered sale deeds bearing Nos.942/1963 and 943/1963 from one Susarla
Parthasaradhi, who purchased the said land from Sagi Narasimha Raju and
others under registered sale deeds bearing Nos.54/1959 and 55/1959.
According to the writ petitioners, even earlier also, the said land was subjected
to sale as per registered sale deed bearing No.1276/1928. According to them,
the said land has all along been subjected to various sale transactions from
the year 1928 onwards till the mother of writ petitioners purchased the same in
the year 1965 under the aforesaid registered sale deed showing the same as
inam dry land in pre-abolition records and thereafter as ryotwari land.
(b) However, it is the grievance of the writ petitioners that the said land
was erroneously recorded in the Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA)/Manual
Diaglot Record (MDR) as Ralla Guttalu i.e. hill poramboke during survey and
settlement operations conducted in the village after the advent of the Andhra
Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 abruptly
without conducting any proper enquiry and without giving any opportunity to
the vendors of the mother of writ petitioners by name Smt. Puvvada
Anjaneyulu, wife of late P.Bhaskara Rao.
(c) Therefore, they have filed a claim petition before the Joint Collector
cum Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram, for change of classification of the said
land under B.S.O. 34B(10) of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing
Orders in the Revenue records.
(d) The Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer has verified the title deed
of the mother of the writ petitioners and her vendor and the erstwhile land
owners and the pre-abolition Revenue records i.e., Gillman Register, 1903
and Inam B Register and the proceedings under T.D.No.951 and after
verifying and examining the said records, the Joint Collector found that it was
5
wrongly recorded in the post-abolition records as poramboke and it was
shown in the remarks column as Ralla Guttalu and also after considering the
report of the Tahsildar, he found that the subject land is originally classified as
inam dry and after conversion of the said land under the provisions of the A.P.
Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, that the tenure of
the said land measuring Ac.19.00 covered by Survey No.180/1 of
Vizianagaram was converted from inam dry into ryotwari dry land. He also
found that the said land was subsequently wrongly classified and recorded in
SFA/MDR as Ralla Guttalu poramboke and thereby he has ordered to change
the classification of the said land as ryotwari dry from Ralla Guttalu
poramboku with immediate effect and directed the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, to
make necessary changes in all the Revenue records i.e., MDR/SFA,
FCO/FMB and other relevant Revenue and Survey records promptly in view of
the change of classification of the subject land and further directed the
Tahsildar to submit denotification proposals to the District Collector,
Vizianagaram, through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, on
receipt of application from the writ petitioners. Thereafter, the Tahsildar,
Vizianagaram Mandal, preferred an appeal against the said order of the Joint
Collector cum Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram, to the Commissioner of
Appeals of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said appeal was allowed by the
Commissioner of Appeals and he has set aside the order of the Joint Collector
cum Settlement Officer.
(e) Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners preferred the aforesaid writ
petition assailing the order of the Commissioner of Appeals before the learned
single Judge. The main ground of attack made in the writ petition before the
learned single Judge assailing the order of the Commissioner of Appeals is
that no appeal lies against the order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement
Officer under the A.P. Board of Revenue Standing Orders and the
Commissioner of Appeals erroneously entertained the appeal exercising the
appellate jurisdiction which is not conferred on him. In other words, it is the
main contention of the writ petitioners that the very appeal preferred by the
6
Tahsildar before the Commissioner of Appeals is not maintainable as the
order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer is not an appealable order
and no right of appeal is provided against the said order by the Statute.
The said order is also assailed on the ground that when the Joint Collector
cum Settlement Officer after verifying the pre-abolition records found that the
subject land is an inam dry land, which was subsequently converted into
ryotwari land and that it has undergone several sale transactions right from
the year 1929 till the mother of the writ petitioners finally purchased the said
land in the year 1965 and that the classification was wrongly changed in the
Revenue records without any enquiry and behind the back of the persons who
purchased the said land and that the Commissioner of Appeals is not justified
in setting aside the said order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer,
which is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record and
that the said order of the Commissioner of Appeals suffers from patent
illegality.
(f) The learned single Judge after considering the facts and merits of the
case found both on fact and on law that the order of Commissioner of Appeals
suffers from illegality and thereby allowed the writ petition and has set aside
the order of the Commissioner of Appeals. The learned single Judge held that
the then Special Deputy Tahsildar, Inams, Vizianagaram, enquired into the
matter and held that since the matter was already enquired earlier and that
Form-VIII ryotwari patta as required under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1956 was
already issued in the year 1960 by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) in
favour of the persons holding the lands who are the previous title holders and
that the present enquiry is redundant and unwarranted and thereby dropped
the enquiry and yet in the village records, the classification of the land as Ralla
Guttalu was wrongly entered. Agreeing with the findings of the Joint Collector
cum Settlement Officer on fact and the direction given by him to carry out the
necessary changes in the Revenue records and Survey records changing the
classification of the subject land from poramboke Ralla Guttalu to ryotwari dry
land, the learned Single Judge held that there is no denial of the fact that
7
ryotwari patta was granted under Section 7 of the Act to the previous vendors
in the year 1960 and the same was affirmed by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar in
the writ petition as per proceedings dated 05-9-1979 which are not questioned
and challenged by anyone including the authorities concerned till date and as
such, the said proceedings have attained finality confirming the absolute
ownership of the earlier owners of the subject land.
(g) As regards the maintainability of the appeal, which is the main
ground on which the order of the Commissioner of Appeals is challenged,
after considering the relevant provision i.e. B.S.O. 15 which deals with the
right of appeals, the learned single Judge held that no right of appeal is
provided against the order passed under B.S.O. 34B of the A.P. Board of
Revenue Standing Orders and as such the appeal is not maintainable and
thereby has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Appeals.
(h) Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present writ appeal
questioning the legal validity of the impugned order of the learned single
Judge.
5. We have carefully gone through the order of the Joint Collector cum
Settlement Officer and the material available on record and the order of the
Commissioner of Appeals and the impugned order of the learned single
Judge.
6. At the very outset, it is significant to note that the fact that the subject
land which is in an extent of Ac.19.00 covered by Old Survey No.74/4 which
correlates to the present Survey No.180/1 has undergone various sale
transactions right from the year 1928 till the year 1965 when the mother of the
writ petitioners by name Smt. Puvvada Anjaneyulu, wife of P. Bhaskara Rao,
finally purchased the said land from a person, by name P. Venkatapathi Raju
and others under a registered sale deed bearing No.2486/1965 is absolutely
not in dispute. The State did not specifically deny or controvert the said fact.
Therefore, when the land has undergone several sale transactions for all this
8
length of long time from the year 1928 during pre-abolition period till the post-
abolition period in the year 1965, there has been absolutely no demur
whatsoever from any quarter either from the authorities of the State
Government or from any person questioning the said sale transactions on the
ground that the land is Ralla Guttalu poramboke and not an inam dry or
ryotwari dry land. Thus, the flow of title from the year 1928 till the year 1965
when the mother of the writ petitioners purchased the said land depicting the
subject land as inam dry land and ryotwari dry land has not been questioned
and disputed in this case. It is also significant to note that in the Gillman
Register, which is the relevant register during the pre-abolition time, the
subject land is also shown as inam dry land. Even in Inam Fair Register
under T.D.No.951 and in Inam B Register of Vizianagaram Bit-II, it was not
shown as Ralla Guttalu. It is only after the survey operation took place after
the advent of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948,
the land was wrongly classified as Ralla Guttalu in the year 1956 and in the
remarks column of certain Revenue records, the subject land was shown as
Ralla Guttalu. At the time of making the said entry, there is nothing to show
that any enquiry was conducted and on what basis the said change of
classification is noted in the records. No notice was given to the then owner of
the land from whom the title passed to the mother of the writ petitioners when
she purchased the land in the year 1965 under a registered sale deed.
Therefore, the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer, after noticing all the said
facts and after considering the pre-abolition records and post-abolition records
and after considering the report of the Tahsildar who dropped the enquiry
rightly, ordered for amending the entry in the revenue record by changing the
classification from Ralla Guttalu to ryotwari dry land. Therefore, the said order
does not suffer from any patent illegality on fact or from manifest error of law.
The learned single Judge also after considering the said facts emanating from
the record affirmed the order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer.
Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer
from any illegality.
9
7. The Commissioner of Appeals also did not appreciate the said facts
on record emanating from the relevant entries made in the pre-abolition
records and has erroneously set aside the order of the Joint Collector cum
Settlement Officer. It is well settled law that the nature of the land recorded in
pre-abolition records will prevail over the entries made in the post-abolition
records. So, both on fact and law, the said order of Commissioner of Appeals
is not sustainable.
8. Be that as it may, when the writ petitioners have filed a claim petition
under B.S.O. 34(10) to change the classification of the land in the records and
when the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer also ordered to classify the
subject land as ryotwari dry from poramboke/ralla guttalu with immediate
effect and directed to carry out necessary changes in all the Revenue records
i.e. MDR/SFA, FCO/FMB and other relevant Revenue and Survey records
under B.S.O. 34B(10), no right of appeal is provided against the said order
under the A.P. Board of Revenue Standing Orders to the Commissioner of
Appeals. B.S.O. 15 is the relevant provision which deals with right of appeals.
Against which orders, an appeal lies to the Divisional Officer or to the
Collector or to the Board has been clearly dealt with in B.S.O. 15. For better
appreciation, B.S.O. 15 is extracted hereunder and it reads thus:
"B.S.O. 15. Grant of lands for occupation subject to payment of
assessment :
1 to 14. ..............................
15. Appeals :--From every original decision in darkhast cases whether
it is passed by the Tahsildar, the Divisional Officer, or the Collector, one
appeal shall be allowed, provided that it be made within 30 days of the date
on which the original decision was pronounced or communicated if the appeal
is from the Tahsildar to the Divisional Officer or from the Divisional Officer to
the Collector, and within 40 days if it be from the Collector to the Board.
In computing the period of limitation, the day on which the decision appealed
against was pronounced or communicated and the time requisite for obtaining
a copy of that decision shall be excluded. On all copies issued shall be
10
entered the date of the decision or communication, the date of the application
for copy, the date on which the copy was ready for delivery and the date on
which the appeal time expires. Any person interested in the matter may
appeal. All appeals in darkhast cases should be stamped with a court fee
label to the value of 5 rupees."
9. From a bare reading of the aforesaid B.S.O. 15, it is obvious that an
appeal lies to the Divisional Officer from the orders of the Tahsildar and to the
Collector from the order of the Divisional Officer. It does not cover an order
passed under B.S.O. 34B(10). It did not confer any right of appeal against an
order passed by the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer under B.S.O.
34B(10) to the Commissioner of Appeals. Therefore, it is really beyond our
comprehension as to how the Tahsildar preferred an appeal against the said
order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer to the Commissioner of
Appeals and as to how the Commissioner of Appeals entertained the said
appeal and has set aside the order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement
Officer. It is settled proposition of law that appeal is a statutory right and only
when Statute confers a right of appeal against any particular order, then only
an aggrieved person can prefer an appeal against the said order. When the
Statute did not provide any right of appeal or confer any appellate jurisdiction
on any appellate authority, an appeal is not maintainable against the said
order. Therefore, the Commissioner of Appeals has exercised the appellate
jurisdiction against the order of Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer, which
is not conferred on him under any Statute. Therefore, the order of the
Commissioner of Appeals is without any jurisdiction and it is clearly
unsustainable under law. Considering the said legal position, the learned
single Judge has rightly set aside the order of the Commissioner of Appeals
by the impugned order on the ground that the said appeal is not maintainable
as the Commissioner of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal.
Therefore, the impugned order of the learned single Judge does not suffer
from any legal infirmity and it warrants no interference in this appeal. So, the
appeal is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
11
10. The learned Special Government Pleader has also fairly conceded
that no right of appeal is provided against the order of the Joint Collector cum
Settlement Officer to the Commissioner of Appeals and that the appeal is not
maintainable. However, he would contend that even though an appeal is not
maintainable against the order of the Joint Collector cum Special Officer which
is on the face of it erroneous and if the writ is not entertained on the ground
that the appeal is not maintainable that the erroneous order passed by the
Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer will continue to prevail and in such
circumstances, the writ can be entertained to test the validity of the order of
Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer. In support of his contention, he relied
on the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Maharaja Chintamani Saran
Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar1, Telangana Housing Board v.
Azamunnisa Begum (Died) through LRs2 and Al-Can Export (P) Ltd v.
Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd.3. But the said judgments are not
applicable to the present facts of the case. It is not found in this case that the
order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer, which is the basic order, is
erroneous or unsustainable under law. As per the findings recorded by the
learned single Judge and also as per the findings of this Court, the Joint
Collector cum Settlement Officer has undertaken an extensive exercise of
examining all the relevant record relating to pre-abolition period and post-
abolition period and more particularly the Gilman Register, Inam B Register,
the subsequent grant of ryotwari patta in the year 1960 etc., and arrived at
a right conclusion that the classification of the land was wrongly changed.
Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the said contention
of the learned Special Government Pleader is devoid of merit and it cannot be
countenanced.
1
(1999) 8 SCC 16
2
(2018) 7 SCC 346
3
(2024) 9 SCC 94
12
11. Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned
order passed by the learned single Judge. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J.
31st March, 2026. Ak 13 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Writ Appeal No.209 of 2026 (per CMR, J.) 31st March, 2026.
(Ak)