Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9989

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Tuhin Kumar Gedela, JJ
State of AP – Appellant
Versus
Puvvada Srinivas – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO: 209/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D Yathindra Dev
For the Respondents: K Chidambaram, Ravula Nagarjuna

An appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained unless expressly provided. In the absence of a statutory right of appeal against orders passed under B.S.O. 34B(10) of the A.P. Board of Revenue Standing Orders, the Commissioner of Appeals lacks the jurisdiction to set aside such an order.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 - B.S.O. 15 and 34B(10) of the A.P. Board of Revenue Standing Orders - Classification of land records - Appealability - Whether an appeal lies against an order passed by the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer under B.S.O. 34B(10) to the Commissioner of Appeals - Held, no right of appeal is provided under B.S.O. 15 against orders under B.S.O. 34B(10), hence appeal is not maintainable. (Paras 4, 8, 9)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Statutory right of appeal - Held, an appeal is a statutory right and can only be exercised when the statute confers such power; in the absence of a provision, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the challenge. (Para 9)

(C) Revenue Records - Correctness of entries - Nature of land in pre-abolition records prevails over post-abolition entries - Held, unauthorized or erroneous changes in land classification during survey operations without conducting enquiry and opportunity of hearing to the owners are unsustainable. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners sought a change in the classification of 19 acres of land in Vizianagaram from 'poramboke' (hill) to 'ryotwari dry' land. The Joint Collector accepted their contention, based on pre-abolition revenue records confirming the land was 'inam dry' and subsequently acquired as 'ryotwari' land. The Tahsildar appealed this to the Commissioner of Appeals, who set aside the Joint Collector’s order. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding the appeal before the Commissioner was not maintainable.

Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's order, noting that B.S.O. 15 does not confer a right of appeal against orders passed under B.S.O. 34B(10). The court further found the Joint Collector's decision, based on extensive verification of pre-abolition registers, was correct on merits.

Issues: Whether an appeal lies against an order of the Joint Collector under B.S.O. 34B(10) and whether the land classification was wrongly recorded.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot exercise jurisdiction where no statutory right of appeal exists. Furthermore, entries in pre-abolition records prevail over post-abolition records in the absence of a validly conducted enquiry at the time of change.

Result: Writ appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of land dispute and procedural history of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. pre-abolition revenue records hold primacy over post-abolition entries in land classification. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory; an appeal is not maintainable absent express provision. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. the final order dismissing the writ appeal and affirming the lower court decision. (Para 11)

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above-named appellants prefer this Memorandum of Writ Appeal before this Honble Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 17.10.2025 in W.P.No.38090 of 2022 rendered by the Learned Single Judge.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 17.10.2025 passed in W.P. No. 38090 of 2022, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal, and pass

Counsel for the Appellants:

1. D YATHINDRA DEV, SPL GOVT PLEADER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Counsel for the Respondents:

1. K CHIDAMBARAM, SENIOR COUNSEL, REPRESENTING RAVULA NAGARJUNA

Date of Reserve : 24-3-2026

Date of Pronouncement : 31-3-2026

Date of Uploading : 02-4-2026

The Court made the following:

Judgment: (per Ch. Manavendranath Roy, J.)

1. This intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is preferred by the State against the order dated 17-10-2025 of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.38090 of 2022 whereby he has allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Appeals and confirming the order of the Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram, directing the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, to carry out necessary changes in the Revenue records relating to the nature of the land covered by Old Survey No.74/4 and present R.S.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.19.00 in Vizianagaram Bit-II.

2. Heard Sri D. Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader, attached to the office of learned Advocate General for the appellants/State and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners.

3. The dispute and controversy involved in this appeal essentially pertains to classification and nature of the land which is in an extent of Ac.19.00 covered by Old Survey No.74/4 and present Survey No.180/1 situate in Vizianagaram Bit-II in Vizianagaram Mandal.

4. Facts germane to adjudicate the lis in this appeal may briefly be delineated as follows:

(a) There is a vast extent of land covered by Old Survey No.74 situate in Vizianagaram Bit-II in Vizianagaram Mandal. The said land was sub divided into various Survey numbers. The subject land, which is in dispute in this appeal, is part of the said vast extent of land covered by Survey No.74. The subject land is in an extent of Ac.19.00 covered by Old Survey No.74/4 and present Survey No.180/1. According to the writ petitioners, who are the respondents herein, it was originally an inam dry land and it was classified in the pre-abolition records also as inam dry land. Subsequently, a ryotwari patta was issued in respect of the said land to the erstwhile owners of the said land in the year 1960. It is their case that their mother Smt. Puvvada Anjaneyulu purchased the said land, which is in an extent of Ac.19.00 covered by Old Survey No.74/4 and present Survey No.180/1 from a person, by name Sri Penmatsa Venkatapathi Raju and others under a registered sale deed bearing No.2486/1965 and her vendors also purchased the said land from the erstwhile owners of the said land in the year 1963 under two different registered sale deeds bearing Nos.942/1963 and 943/1963 from one Susarla Parthasaradhi, who purchased the said land from Sagi Narasimha Raju and others under registered sale deeds bearing Nos.54/1959 and 55/1959. According to the writ petitioners, even earlier also, the said land was subjected

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9989

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHCheekati Manavendranath Roy, Tuhin Kumar Gedela, JJState of AP – AppellantVersusPuvvada Srinivas – RespondentWRIT APPEAL NO: 209/2026

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Tuhin Kumar Gedela, JJ
State of AP – Appellant
Versus
Puvvada Srinivas – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO: 209/2026