APHC010452022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23552/2025 Between: 1. L VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/ O L.SUBBARAYUDU AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/ O 1-50, JAMBULAPADU VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT 4. LINGUNTLA RAMAIAH, S/ O NOT KNOWN 5. LINGUNTLA VENKATA RAMUDU, S/ O LATE LINGUNTLA CHINNA RANGAIAH 6. LINGUNTLA MEENAKSHI NAIDU, S/O LATE LINGUNTLA PEDDA VENKATAIAH. 7. LINGUNTLA CHINNA VENKATAIAH, S/ O LATE LINGUNTLA CHIRREPPAGARI SUBBAIAH 8. RAVI RAMAKRISHNA, S/ O LATE PEDDA KONDAPPA 2 9. LINGUNTLA APPAIAH, S/O LINGUNTLA RAMANNA 10. LINGUNTLA RANGAIAH, S/ O LINGUNTLA SOMANNA 11. LINGUNTLA VENKATA RAMUDU, S/ O LINGUNTLA SOMANNA 12. LINGUNTLA RANGAIAH, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA 13. LINGUNTLA BHASKAR, S/O LATE LINGUNTLA KONDAIAH 14. LINGUNTLA SREERNIVASULU, S/O LATE LINGUNTLA PEDDA RANGAIAH 15. LINGUNTLA DEVARAJA NAIDU, S/O LATE LINGUNTLA PEDDA RANGAIAH 16. LINGUNTLA CHANDRA SEKHAR NAIDU, S/ O LATE LINGUNTLA PEDDA RANGAIAH 17. PARLAPALLE RAMACHANDRA NAIDU, S/O PARLAPALLE RANGAPPA 18. P SOMASEKHAR NAIDU, S/O LATE P.RAMANJULA NAIDU 19. P LOKESH NAIDU, S/O LATE P.RAMANJULA NAIDU 20. P RAMESH NAIDU, S/O PARLAPALLE RANGAPPA RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 20 R/O THIPPAREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, TADIPAHI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT . ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, interdicting the 2nd Respondent from proceeding with trial/ enquiry in connection with Appeal in Rc.No. 1049/2025/D2 pending on its file, filed by the Respondent No. 4 to 20. herein and to consequently hold that the 2nd Respondent has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the said Appeal in Rc. No. 1049/2025/D2 filed by Respondent Nos. 4 to 20 herein and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 3 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 pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in Appeal in Rc.No. 1049/2025/D2 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of W.P.No. of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23552 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, interdicting the 2nd Respondent from proceeding with trial/enquiry in connection with Appeal in Rc.No.1049/2025/D2 pending on its file, filed by the Respondent No.4 to 20 herein and to consequently hold that the 2nd Respondent has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the said Appeal in Rc.No.1049/2025/D2 filed by Respondent Nos.4 to 20 herein and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the appellate authority lacks the power to entertain the appellate jurisdiction beyond the limitation period, and the petitioner prays to reject the appeal field vide Rc.No.1049/2025/D2, by respondent Nos.4 to 20 before respondent No.2, is barred by limitation and cannot be proceeded with. 3. A writ of prohibition is issued only, when the inferior Court or Tribunal (a) patent lack of jurisdiction is made out, (b) proceeds to act in violation of rules of natural justice, (c) proceeds to act under law 5 which is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional, or (d) proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights. 4. The writ of prohibition cannot be issued for the obvious reason that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, whether the Act provides to file appeal beyond the prescribed period is question of fact, which has to be addressed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Counsel for the petitioner states that a detailed counter or objection has already been filed in the appeal, specifically addressing the issue of limitation, and that this should be taken into account by respondent No. 2 before making further decisions. 6. The present Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 to take into account the objections dated 07.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner prior to making any decision regarding the appeal. There will be no order concerning costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 04.09.2025 KBN 6 96 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 23552 OF 2025 Date: 04-09-2025 KBN