APHC010584652024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30578 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-68 [3584] Tirumalanadhuni Narasimha Prasad Rao and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Counsel for Petitioner: MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for Respondent/s: GP FOR HOME, GP FOR REVENUE, P NAGENDRA REDDY CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 21st July 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in conducting enquiry vide proceedings in LCC Nos.1517/1518/KVR/1975, dated ___ .12.2024 pursuant to the instructions of respondent Nos.2 and 3 over the concluded land ceiling proceedings, inspite of pendency of the appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal: West Godavari District at Eluru in lA No.771/2023 in SR No.906/2023 in unnumbered LRA No. /2023 in LCC No.1518/KVR/75, Dt21.07.2023, another Appeal in lA 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.30578 of 2024 No.772/2023 in SR No.908/2023 in unnumbered LRA No. /2023 in LCC No.1517/KVR/75, Dt 21.07.2023, inspite of the pendency of the Writ Petitions on the file of this honorable court bearing W.P.Nos.6289 of 2024, 9988 of 2024, 16288 of 2024 and 10539 of 2024, Writ Appeal bearing W.A.No.241 of 2024, Contempt Case bearing C.C.Nos.3354 of 2024, 2035 of 2024, Disposal Writ Petition Nos.5458 of 2024, 11068 of 2024, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 and Rules framed thereunder and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 not to issue any administrative directions or orders with regard to declarations acceptance proceedings Dt.21.07.2023 in proceedings LCC.No. 1517/KVR/75 and pass such other orders.” 2. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents and Sri K.Sazid, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 3. Petitioners are tenants over subject property. In the earlier round of litigation emanating under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.30578 of 2024 the matter went up to Hon’ble Apex Court and by judgment dated 06.03.1990 in G.Brahmayya and others v. Ala Venkatarao and others1, the claim of tenants came to be accepted. It is stated that in pursuance to the same, appropriate declarations were filed thereafter and the Original authority has passed orders dated 21.07.2023 in LCC Nos.1517 & 1518/KVR/75 accordingly. Assailing the same, the original landlords and persons claiming through them have preferred appeals before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, which are stated to be pending. Interregnum, various writ petitions came to be preferred in W.P. Nos.6289 of 2024, 9988 of 2024, 16288 of 2024 and 10539 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.241 of 2024, C.C. Nos.2035 and 3354 of 2024 at the instance of the aforesaid persons. 4. Be that as it may, the respondents 2 to 5 by issuing impugned proceedings in LCC Nos.1517 & 1518/KVR/75, dated 21.07.2023, proposed to conduct further enquiry, which is clearly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 5. Respondents 10 and 11 came to be impleaded in these proceedings, who are none other than the successors of original 1 (1990) 2 SCC 283 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.30578 of 2024 declarant/landlord. Incidentally, they are the appellants in Writ Appeal No.241 of 2024. 6. It is not in dispute that in earlier round of litigation the issue has been decided in favour of tenants and by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, the same has attained finality and thereafter, the declarations of tenants have been processed and orders came to be passed in LCC Nos.1517 & 1518/KVR/75, dated 21.07.2023. Later, proceedings are called in appeal by the unofficial respondents and as well as various other parties. 7. When the landlords sought to raise issues in W.P. No.5458 of 2024, having preferred appeal before the appellate authority, learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition with liberty to them to raise all the issues before the appellate authority. In this background, the proceedings of 4th respondent by which further enquiry is sought to be conducted with respect to the very same subject matter, in our considered opinion, would be in overreach of the orders passed under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973. Unless the appeal preferred by landowners is decided, question of making any 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.30578 of 2024 further enquiry at the instance of the original declarants or landlords does not arise at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings issued by 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are given liberty to initiate any further enquiry subject to outcome of pending appeals before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS