Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, SUBHENDU SAMANTA, JJ.
V. Chandrasekhar Naidu, S/o Late V. Ramachandra Naidu – Appellant
Versus
E Muneendra, S/o. Late Nadhamuni – Respondent
Writ Appeal No: 684 Of 2026
Decided On : 18-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property and Land Revenue
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH ASSIGNED LANDS PROHIBITION OF TRANSFERS ACT : S.3(5)
REGISTRATION ACT : S.22(a)
Headnote
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Principles of natural justice - Due process of law - Pending civil suit with interim injunction against petitioners - Court granted limited protection from dispossession for three weeks allowing parties to approach trial court - No observation on merits regarding possession. (Paras 25-31)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenged a Single Judge's order that directed status quo on mutation entries in revenue records and expeditious disposal of a statutory appeal regarding land assignment. The appellant contended that the direction on mutation was beyond the scope of the writ petition, as the original prayer only concerned the prevention of illegal dispossession pending statutory appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Bench held that the Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by granting relief (status quo on mutation) not sought in the pleadings. Consequently, that part of the order was set aside. However, to prevent irreparable harm, the court granted the petitioners limited protection against dispossession for three weeks to facilitate them approaching the competent civil court.
Issues: Whether the High Court can grant a relief not specifically prayed in the pleadings and the extent of interference allowed in pending civil disputes regarding land possession.
Ratio Decidendi: A Court ought not to grant relief that has not been prayed in the writ petition, as the pleadings are meant to narrow the controversy and inform the parties of the questions in issue.
Result: Writ appeal allowed in part.
For the Appellant : Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar
For the Respondent: Gp For Assignment, Gp For Revenue, Maheswari Arika
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant appearing through virtual mode, Ms. Maheswari Arika, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.8, 10, 12 & 13.
2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent No.7 (in the writ petition), aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2026 passed in W.P.No.14219 of 2026, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo, as on the date of the order, with regard to the subject land, with respect to the mutation of the names of the parties concerned for the subject land.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.14219 of 2026. The appellant herein is respondent No.7 and respondent Nos.8 to 13 herein are the official respondents.
4. The dispute between the appellant and the writ petitioners pertains to the subject land i.e., to an extent of Ac.2.48 cents in Sy.No.243/3, situated at Cherlopalle Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District (erstwhile Chittoor District).
5. The case of the writ petitioners was that the subject land was assigned in favour of the writ petitioners’ grandfather and he remained in possession and enjoyment thereof which was also so recorded in the revenue records. The Urban Development Authority issued notice dated 27.02.1987 under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and called for the objections and after submission of the objections, the proceedings were withdrawn in the year 1987. It is their further case that the petitioners’ grandfather nor his sons transferred the subject land to anyone. However, respondent No.7 in writ petition claimed that his father had purchased the land from the petitioners’ grandfather/his legal heirs. Respondent No.6 in the writ petition passed the order of resumption on 16.08.1987 on the ground of violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment which was challenged by the father of respondent No.7 in writ petition No.12556 of 1999 which was disposed of with the direction to the Tahsildar concerned to reconsider the issue with reference to Section 3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. After enquiry an order was passed in favour of the father of respondent No.7 on 13.11.1990 but after his death again the proposal for resumption of the land was initiated on the ground that the land use was changed, into non-agricultural, for the setting up a brick kiln. The order of resumption was passed on 19.06.2006, which was challenged in appeal. The appeal was allowed. The resumption order was set aside on 15.03.2008 by RDO but this order was again set aside in revision on 30.10.2009 by the Joint Collector, with direction to resume the land as per the Rules and to make necessary changes in the revenue records. Respondent No.7 in writ petition, filed W.P.No.26503 of 2009 which was allowed on 03.02.2020 by setting aside the order dated 30.10.2009. Challenging the order dated 03.02.2020 two writ appeal Nos.373 and 572 of 2021 were filed, which were dismissed confirming the order passed in Writ Petition.
6. Petitioners further case is that respondent No.7 in writ petition without approaching the competent civil court made representation dated 19.05.2025 before the Joint Collector for deletion of the land from prohibited properties list under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 for the land to the disputed extent, which was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2026 deleting the land from the prohibited property list. The writ petitioners’ case is that, the order dated 19.02.2026 was passed without notice to them. Challenging the order dated 19.02.2026, the writ petitioners filed appeal along with stay application on 15.04.2026 and the same is pending adjudication before the appellate authority. Their further case is that in the meantime, the entry in revenue records was changed to certain extent of an area, and the peti
