Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ravuri Linga Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 September, 2025
APHC010345482025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.
N 17612/2025
BETWEEN:
1. RAVURI LINGA REDDY, S/
S/o. GARUVA REDDY AGED ABOUT
64 YEARS OCC
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/o. PERNAMITTA
VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High
2
Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records pertaining to
the order passed by the 2 D.DIS.COORDN-4/211/2024 dt.06.06.2025
confirming the order of the 3RD respondent vide proceedings appeal
no. D.DIS.COORDN- nd respondent vide proceedings 4/693/23 dt.
20.01.2024 is as illegal arbitrary, and violation of Rule 9 of AP
Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Rules
2018 and also violation of Article 14 and Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the order passed by the 2 300-A of the nd
respondent vide proceedings D.DIS.COORDN-4/211/2024
dt.06.06.2025 confirming the order of the 3RD respondent vide
proceedings appeal no. D.DIS.COORDN-4/693/23 dt. 20.01.2024 and
pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"... to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings D.DIS.COORDN-4/211/2024 dt.06.06.2025 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings appeal no.D.DIS.COORDN-4/693/23, dt. 20.01.2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Rule 9 of A.P Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Rules 2018 and also violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings D.DIS.COORDN-4/211/2024 dt. 06.06.2025 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings appeal no.D.DIS.COORDN-4/693/23dt. 20.01.2024 and pass such other or further orders...."
2. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17278 of 2022 due to the 4 th respondent's refusal to grant permission for converting agricultural land into non-agricultural land. While the said writ petition is still pending, it appears that the 4th respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, issued conversion proceedings (D.Dis.No.C/12/2023) 4 on 03.01.2023, allowing the conversion of Ac.1.42 cents of agricultural land covered by Sy.No.136/4B to non-agricultural land. Following these proceedings, the petitioner settled the land in favor of family members through registered settlement deeds dated 06.01.2023. Subsequently, part of the converted land was sold to third parties, who then constructed residential houses after obtaining building permissions from the Municipal Corporation.
4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the 3rd respondent has taken up appeal suo motu under amended Section 8 of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural purpose) Act, 2006, (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') and passed orders vide appeal No.D.Dis.Coord-4/693/2023, dated 20.01.2024, which set aside the orders of 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole vide D.Dis.No.C/12/2023, dated 03.01.2023 and remanded the case to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh enquiry.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner herein filed Revision Petition and the 2nd respondent / District Collector vide order in D.DIS.COORDN-4/211/2024, dated 06.06.2025 has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, the dismissal includes the observation that it did not adequately justify the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land and failed to verify records, 5 particularly noting that the revision petitioner executed 12 settlement of sale documents concerning Sy.No.136/4B and that nearly 6 houses are under construction.
6. The said proceeding is being challenged in this Court on the basis that the 3rd respondent-the Joint Collector lacks the authority to address the appeal either suo moto or through an appeal filed before him, beyond 60 days limit specified in Rule 9 of the Rules. The petitioner indicated that Battula Rajyalakshmi filed Writ Petition No.5851 of 2023, challenging the order dated 03.01.2023, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, regarding conversion permission before this Court. This Writ Petition was disposed of on 09.03.2023 directing the writ petitioner to file an appeal; however, no appeal was filed. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent-the Joint Collector, took cognizance of the matter suo moto. The petitioner asserts that the conversion proceeding was granted on 03.01.2023 and by the time the writ petition was disposed of on 09.03.2023, the appeal period had lapsed. Following the disposal of the writ petition, the 3rd Respondent- Joint Collector's action is claimed to be barred by limitation. Additionally, the 3rd respondent did not provide any reasoning in the order dated 20.01.2024, which was subsequently confirmed by the 2 nd respondent-the Revisional Authority. The petitioner argues that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 06.06.2025 be set aside. 6
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India 1, wherein it is held as follows:
Administrative Law - Natural justice - Recording of reasons
- Authority exercising quasi-judicial function must record reasons for its decision irrespective of whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review.
8. The 2nd respondent-District Collector filed his counter restating the facts narrated in the impugned order and further stated that Sy.No.136/4 was sub-divided again in the year 2022 as Sy.No.136/4A with an extent of Ac.26.33 cents, Sy.No.136/4B with an extent of Ac.1.42 cents and Sy.No.136/4C with an extent of Ac.0.08 cents under BSO No.34A and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole without observing the previous records, issued new orders for conversion of agricultural land into Non-agricultural purposes in respect of land in Sy.No.136/4B measuring an extent of Ac.1.42 cents in favour of the petitioner herein vide D.Dis.C/12/2023, dated 03.01.2023 and further stated that there are civil suits pending in respect of subject land and without considering the same, the conversion proceedings taken place observing in the above manner and dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner.
1 (1993) 3 SCC 326 7
9. An amendment was introduced to the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 2018 through G.O.Ms.No.227 Revenue (DA & LR), dated 26.08.2021 granting the Joint Collector power to exercise suo motu Revision under Section 8 of the Act. For facility purpose the said provision is reproduced hereunder.
The Joint Collector, either Suo moto, or an appeal filed before him within sixty (60) days in the matter of conversion for Non-agricultural purpose may call for the records and satisfy himself that the order passed is correct and if, in his opinion, such order is to be annulled or modified shall after hearing the matter issue necessary orders.
10. It might be the contention of the Petitioner that, the Act does not enable the filing of an Appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period. It is well-settled law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to exercise of suo moto powers of appeal or review, nor to appeals filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, unless the statute expressly provides for such an extension. Therefore, the present appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the Joint Collector cannot receive the appeal beyond the period of 60 days.
11. The issue for consideration is whether the Collector can exercise appellate powers suo moto beyond 60 days, in light of the exclusion 8 clause under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. To address this contention, this Court relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co.2 wherein it was held that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribes a strict limitation period for challenging arbitral awards, and excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by necessary implication. Applying the same principle, where a special statute prescribes a fixed time limit and excludes further extension, the authority cannot entertain or initiate appeals beyond the stipulated period. In the case on hand there is no specific exclusion, hence, the Sub-Collector can exercise the appellate power beyond 60 days.
12. The relevant extract of Section 34 of Arbitration Act reads :
34 " Application for setting aside arbitral award - (1) xxx xx (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may 2 (2001) 8 SCC 470 9 entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.
13. The issue will have to be resolved with reference to the language used in Sections 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Section 29(2) provides that :
"Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law."
14. On an analysis of the above Section, it is clear that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 will apply when:
(1) there is a special or local law which prescribes a different period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application; and
(ii) the special or local law does not expressly exclude those Sections.
15. Where once the special or local law has provided a period different from that Sub-section (2) of Section 29 stands directly 10 attracted and section 3 and other Sections shall apply insofar as, and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
16. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does have a specific exclusion regarding the filing of an application to set aside an Award under Section 34, and Appeals under Section 37 are subject to a strict 30-day limitation period, which can be extended by a further 30 days by the Court for "sufficient cause" but not later than, "but not thereafter." But there is no exclusion provision or no exclusion provision exists under Section 8 of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural purpose) Act, 2006.
17. In plethora of Judgments the Apex Court, it has emphatically held that while exercising the certiorari Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, conditions under which certiorari can lie. (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, us when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate 11 jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review finding of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, even if they be erroneous.
18. It is the significant contention of the writ petitioner that despite specifically raising concerns before the Revisional Authority regarding the jurisdictional issue of entertaining the Appeal beyond 60 days, this point was not addressed, and the confirmation of the orders by the 3 rd respondent was made without adequate reasons.
19. With the above said observation, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders of both the Appellate and the Revisional Authority are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Joint Collector-3rd respondent to reconsider and pass appropriate orders on the grounds raised by the petitioner herein in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to all the affected parties. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 11.09.2025 Harin 12 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 17612 OF 2025 Date: 11-09-2025 Harin