Abolition of Appellate Forum Without Legislative Replacement Destroys Vested Right of Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court on Land Grabbing Act - 2025-09-19

Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules It Cannot Hear Land Grabbing Appeals, Cites Lack of Statutory Power

Amaravati: In a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications for property disputes, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared that it lacks the jurisdiction to hear Land Grabbing Appeals filed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. A division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that the abolition of the statutory appellate body, the 'Special Court', without a legislative amendment creating a new forum, effectively extinguishes the vested right of appeal.

The Court dismissed a large batch of appeals, some pending for years, which were transferred to or filed directly in the High Court following the dissolution of the Special Court in 2016.

Background of the Jurisdictional Quagmire

The case centered on a fundamental legal question: Where does an appeal lie when the statutorily designated appellate forum is abolished by a government order?

Under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, disputes were first heard by 'Special Tribunals' (headed by District Judges). Section 7A(3) of the Act provided a clear path for appeal from a Special Tribunal's decision to a 'Special Court', a high-powered body chaired by a retired or sitting High Court Judge.

This structure was disrupted on September 2, 2016, when the state government issued G.O.Ms.No.420, exercising its power under Section 7(4) of the Act to abolish the Special Court. The same government order directed that all pending appeals before the Special Court be transferred to the High Court. This move was subsequently endorsed by a resolution of the Administrative Committee of the then-common High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. This created two sets of cases before the current High Court: those transferred from the abolished Special Court and those filed directly after its abolition.

Core Arguments Before the Court

• Appellants' Stance: The counsel for the appellants argued that the appeals were maintainable. They contended that the right to appeal is a substantive right vested in a litigant when a case begins. With the appellate forum (Special Court) abolished, and given the government order and the High Court's own administrative resolution, the High Court was the logical successor forum to hear these appeals.

• State and High Court's Position: The Advocate General and the High Court's standing counsel explained the history leading to the transfer but acknowledged that the High Court is not defined as a 'Special Court' under the 1982 Act. The central issue revolved around whether a Government Order and an administrative resolution could override a statute and confer appellate jurisdiction on the High Court.

Court’s Analysis: Executive Orders Cannot Supplant Statute

The division bench undertook a detailed analysis of the separation of powers and the nature of appellate rights. The judgment established several key principles:

• Right to Appeal is Statutory: The right to appeal and the forum for that appeal are creations of statute. They cannot be created or altered by executive orders or administrative resolutions.

• Abolition of Forum Perishes the Right: Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench emphasized a crucial principle: "If the court to which an appeal lies is altogether abolished without any forum constituted in its place for the disposal of pending matters or for lodgment of the appeals, vested right perishes."

• Executive Order Exceeded Authority: The Court found that while the government had the power under Section 7(4) to abolish the Special Court, it did not have the power to create a new appellate forum. The part of G.O.Ms.No.420 transferring appeals to the High Court was deemed beyond the government's statutory authority and an executive transgression. The Court held: > "The G.O.Ms.No.420, dated 02.09.2016... to the extent the said G.O.Ms.No.420 provided for the High Court as the Appellate Court... is beyond the statutory powers conferred on the State Government and to that extent, the Government Order is in transgression of the executive powers of the State..."

• Administrative Resolution Cannot Confer Jurisdiction: Similarly, the High Court on its administrative side could not confer appellate jurisdiction upon itself, as this power lies exclusively with the legislature. The resolution was seen as an attempt to give effect to an invalid government directive.

The Final Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court concluded that all the Land Grabbing Appeals were not maintainable and were consequently dismissed. The judgment clarifies that the High Court is not the appellate authority under the 1982 Act.

However, the Court did not leave the appellants without a remedy. It affirmed that the orders of the Special Tribunals, now being final under the Act due to the lack of an appellate forum, are subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

To protect the interests of the litigants, the bench provided a three-month window for the appellants to file writ petitions challenging the original orders of the Special Tribunals. Any existing interim orders in the dismissed appeals will continue for this period to allow the parties to seek appropriate relief.