SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T.C.D. SEKHAR, JJ.
K. Muralidhar Reddy, S/o. K. R. Reddy – Appellant
Versus
N. Subhashini Reddy, W/o. Ravindar Reddy and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1381 of 2025
Decided On : 07-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sivaprasad Reddy Venati
For the Respondents: GP For Land Acquisition, A.S. C. Bose (SC For Municipal Corporations AP), C. Subodh, GP Muncipal Admn And Urban Dev AP

The Acquisition Officer must refer disputes over land title to the Competent Authority under Act 30 of 2013 instead of deciding them, ensuring adherence to statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Act 30 of 2013 - Sections 63, 64, and 76 - Land acquisition - Dispute over apportionment and title of land - Acquisition Officer exceeded jurisdiction by deciding contested claims instead of referring to Competent Authority as mandated by Section 64 - Writ Appeal dismissed with modification of earlier order directing proper reference. (Paras 16-20)

(B) Authority and Jurisdiction - The Competent Authority alone has jurisdiction over disputes of title concerning land acquisition under Act 30 of 2013 - Courts shall not intervene in disputes of title except in specified circumstances. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose over land acquisition intended for public works, with the heirs of the late owner raising conflicting claims regarding title and compensation despite previous orders and negotiations.

Findings of Court:
The Acquisition Officer was found to have acted beyond his jurisdiction in adjudicating title claims, when such disputes should be referred to the appropriate authority under the Act.

Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the Acquisition Officer concerning title disputes and adherence to the procedural requirements of Act 30 of 2013.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the Acquisition Officer must refer matters of disputed title to the Competent Authority instead of making determinations, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.

Result: Writ Appeal disposed of with directions for proper referral.

Table of Content
1. ownership and acquisition issues of estate (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. claims and legal proceedings of daughters (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments on jurisdiction and claims (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 19)
4. court's analysis on jurisdiction principles (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. ruling on authority referral (Para 15 , 20)

Judgment :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

Heard Sri N. Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the official respondents.

2. One late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy was the owner of about 317 Ankanams of land situated at C.A.S. No.214 of Venkatrampuram, Nellore Town. He passed away leaving behind his three sons and three daughters. It appears that the three sons sold away about 100 Ankanams of land, by way of registered deed of sale in the year 1993. Thereafter, the remaining land, admeasuring about 217 Ankanams was sought to be acquired, for construction of an under-bridge beneath a railway gate. The Nellore Municipality (subsequently Municipal Corporation) issued a notification on 05.04.1994, calling upon the legal heirs of late Sri Radha Krishna Reddy to appear before the Municipal Commissioner for negotiations. At that stage, the three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy are said to have proposed an exchange of land instead of monetary compensation. A Negotiation Committee considered this offer and initially proposed allotment of Ac.2.36 cents of land in lieu of the 217 Ankanams of land sought to be taken over by the Municipality. After further consideration, the extent of land was reduced to Ac.1.76 cents, situated at three different places. This proposal was accepted by the Municipal Council by its resolution, dated 21.07.1996. However, this proposal was rejected by the Government when it was sent for approval and the Government, by way of G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 08.10.1997, modified the proposal reducing the extent of land to Ac.1.06 cents. Being aggrieved by this reduction, one of the sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy moved W.P.No.35515 of 1997 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the three daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy impleaded themselves in the Writ Petition, contending that they also had a claim over the property. A learned Single of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by an order, dated 25.10.2002, had allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside G.O.Rt.No.802, with a further direction to the Government to reconsider the request and to send it back to the Municipal Council, if any modification is required. W.A.Nos.1052 and 1049 of 2004 filed against this order came to be dismissed.

3. Thereafter, the three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy approached the Nellore Municipality stating that the land, that was proposed to be taken over, had been partionedbetween the three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy and that an alternative land should be given to them. The Municipal Council, on the basis of this representation and on the ground that there was an oral partition between the three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy, which came to be reduced to writing, by way of a document, dated 24.08.1992, had decided to execute three separate deeds of exchange. The said deeds of exchange were executed in the year 2013.

4. At that stage, the daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy filed O.S.No.140 of 2013 before the District Judge, Nellore. The prayer in the said suit was to direct the three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy (defendants 1 to 3 therein) to partition the suit schedule A, B & C items of property allotted by the Municipality under the exchange deeds into six equal shares and to put the three daughters in possession, of two shares, by passing a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top