Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
N.S Kirana Kumari D/o Late Jade Suseelamma - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.12287 of 2026
Decided On : 19-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa - Rule against bias - Appellate authority cannot be the same person who passed the original order - Reviewing one's own decision violates the appellate process.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as a legal heir, challenged an order passed by the 3rd respondent in revision proceedings where the original petitioners had died. Applications for substituting legal representatives were pending, yet the authority proceeded to pass a final order against deceased persons without impleading the legal heirs. Furthermore, the authority who passed the original order was also assigned the post of appellate authority for the same revision, raising bias concerns.
Findings of Court:
The court found that adjudicating against deceased persons without substitution is a nullity and in violation of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the court held that an authority cannot act as both the original adjudicator and the appellate authority for the same matter, violating the principles of natural justice and the rule against bias.
Issues: Whether proceedings against deceased persons without legal representatives are void, and whether an authority can sit in appeal over its own prior decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Adherence to legal procedure requires substituting legal heirs before adjudication, and the principle of 'Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa' mandates that an officer cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over their own earlier order.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned order quashed and matter remitted for fresh disposal.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K A Narasimham
For the Respondent: GP For Revenue
ORDER :
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
In the present Writ Petition, this Court is called upon to decide the following interrelated questions of law:
1) Whether a court, tribunal, or authority could legally proceed to dispose of the main proceedings without first deciding an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased party on record; and, if not, whether the adjudication rendered against a party, who was dead at the time (without impleading his legal representatives), renders the entire proceedings and the resultant order void and a nullity in the eye of law?
2) Whether, after such an order having been passed against a deceased person, the very same authority could thereafter assume the role of an appellate authority and sit in appeal over its own decision, in violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice embodied in the maxim ‘Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa’
2) Since both the parties have addressed elaborate submissions and consented for final disposal of the Writ Petition, and considering that the questions arising for consideration are pure questions of law not necessitating the filing of counters, particularly as this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition finally at the stage of admission itself.
3) Before dealing with the questions that arise for consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to briefly refer to the relevant factual background.
4) The present Writ Petition has been instituted inter alia contending that the Appeal preferred by the petitioners in R.P.No.15/2016/E is presently pending before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the 2nd respondent herein. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said authority has been deputed on election duty in the State of Tamil Nadu and is consequently unavailable to take up the Appeal for consideration. The petitioner apprehends that, during the interregnum, if the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Tirupati, the 4th respondent herein, proceeds to implement the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, APIIC, Mangalagiri, Vijayawada, the 3rd respondent herein, the petitioner would be put to serious prejudice and irreparable loss. It is under the aforesaid circumstances that the present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking appropriate reliefs on the grounds urged herein.
5) The contesting respondents in the present Writ Petition are Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4, namely, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, and the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer.
6) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
i) The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of the original 1st petitioner in R.P.No.15/2016/E, pending on the file of 3rd respondent.
ii) The impugned proceedings dated 26.03.2026 were passed by the 3rd respondent in his capacity as Commissioner and Director of Settlements.
iii) It is stated that the very same officer was subsequently appointed as Full Additional Charge (FAC) of the post of Commissioner of Appeals under the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Rt.No.1628 (GA), dated 03.09.2025.
iv) The aforesaid Revision Petition was originally instituted by six (6) petitioners, out of whom petitioner Nos.1 to 5 died during the pendency of the proceedings. Applications seeking to bring their legal representatives on record, along with supporting documents, were filed before the 3rd respondent on 04.03.2026.
v) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order without adjudicating the said applications and without bringing the legal representatives on record.
vi) It is further contended that the impugned order, having been passed against deceased persons, without affording an opportunity of hearing to their legal representatives, is void, non est, and a nullity in th
