¥ \ APHC010403132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) St TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20569 OF 2024 Between: 1. N Subhashini Reddy, W/o. Ravindar Reddy, Aged about 79 years, R/o. Flat no. 101, Sai Vihar Apartment, 0pp. Heritage Fresh, Near Masab Tank Fly over, Vijay Nagar colony, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. G.Usha Reddy W/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 60 R/o.D.No.25-10-466, Flat No,302, 4^^ floor, G.S. Towers, Vedayapalem years. Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.- 3. J. Krishna Kumari W/o.S,ubba Reddy, Aged about 77 years, R/o.Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, Telangana State, Rep. by her GPA Godala Prathyush Reddy, S/o.G.V.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 38 years, R/o.Flat No.503, Park Stone Enclave, Sapphire Block, Indhira Nagar, Iscon City, Kondaya Palem, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District ...Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amavarathi, Guntur District, Rep. by its Principal Secretary 2. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. The Commissioner and, Director of Municipal Administration Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur. The Director of Country and Town Planning, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur. The Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, Rep. by its Commissioner. K Muralidhar Reddy, S/o. K.R.Reddy, Aged about 67 years, R/o. 88, SRT, Municipal Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State. K Gopinadha Reddy, S/o. Radha Krishna Reddy, Aged about 70 years, R/o. Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State. K Syam Sundar Reddy, S/o. Radha Krishna Reddy, Aged about 74 years, R/o. Flat No.6, Sri Vijay Sai Apartments, Venkataramapura m, Nellore City. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ...Respondents 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 to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari under article 226 of the constitution of India calling for records with respect to orders passed by the 3'"^ respondent in Rc.B (LA) 765/2021, dt.30.08.2024 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners also with respect to land of an extent Ac.0.35.22 cents in CAS No.214, situated at Venkatapuram quashing the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.B (LA) 765/2021, dt.30.08.2024 or refer the matter to the Competent Authority u/s. 64 or 76 of the Act, 2013. Nellore by lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to direct the respondent authorities not to pay the compensation to the respondents 7 to 9 with respect to land of an extent Ac.0.35.22 cents in CAS V No.214, situated at Venkatapuram, Nellore, by suspending the Order of the 3rd respondent in Rc.B (LA) 765/2021, dt.30.08.2024. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim order dated 18-09-2024 made in WP No. 20569 of 2024. IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim order dated 18-09-2024 made in WP No. 20569 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI, O MANOHER REDDY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR SRI, C. SUBODH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI T LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI K MURALIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following order: Reserved on 07.10.2025 Pronounced on 14.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20569 of 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: ...to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for records with respect to orders passed by the respondent in RC.B (LA 765/2021, dt.30.08.2024 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners also with respect to land of an extent Ac.0.35.22 cents in CAS No.214, situated at Venkatapuram, Nellore by quashing the proceedings of the 3'"^ respondent in Rc.B(LA) 765/2021, dt.30.08.2024 refer the matter to the Competent Authority u/s 64 or 76 of the Act, 2013 and pass such other order or orders The facts that are relevant for disposal of the writ petition; or 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri O. Manohar Reddy for counsel record Sri C. Subodh for petitioners would submit that an extent of Ac.0.35.22 cents in CAS No. 214 and extent of Ac. 0.61 cents in Sy. No. 1576/518 situated at Venkataramapuram, belongs to one Smt.YadIa Parvathamma W/o Venkata Reddy, was devolved on Smt.Kolli Seshamma who is none other than paternal grandmother on V 2 through a testamentary succession i.e., Gift Settlement Deed Doc. No. 244/1925 dated 07.11.1924 on the death of Smt.Kolli Seshamma, the property was devolved through intestate succession on the father of writ petitioners and respondents 7 to 9 and the petitioners and the respondents have succeeded the property after death of their father in the year 1990 and they have sold 100 ankanams jointly. 3. The Nellore Municipality has issued notices to the interested parties, including the writ petitioners, under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 regarding the acquisition of joint family land to construct an access road to the Box-type under bridge on the land in Sy No. 1576/518. An award inquiry is scheduled for 04.11.1996. While the situation remains thus, on the proposal made by Nellore Municipality have consented through representation dated 19.01.1995 to receive the land in lieu of compensation for an extent of Ac. 1.76 cents situated at three places, for equal market value. Accordingly a resolution was passed on 21.07.1996 and sent for approval to the government, however, the government vide G.O.Rt. No. 802, dated 08.10.1997, has allotted an extent of Ac.1.06 cents only which is part of L.P. No.66/1982 in Balaji Nagar in Nellore District. 3 Aggrieved by action in allotting an extent of Ac. 1.06 cents by the government, the 7*'" respondent has preferred W.P. No.35515 of 2017. And the petitioners herein and respondents 8 and 9 herein are added as party respondents in the said writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed with a direction to re-examine the case following notice and opportunity to the landowners. Aggrieved by the order in the above writ petition the state has preferred intra court appeals No. 1052 and 1049 of 2004 which were dismissed 4. on 18.02.2010. After dismissal of writ appeals the state government has issued G.O. Ms No; 823 MA & UD (W1) department dated 29.06.2011 confirming the resolution No 88 of the Municipal Council dated 12.01.2011, then the Nellore Municipal corporation has executed registered deeds of exchange on 23.02.2013 in favour the respondents 7 to 9. Knowing the fact execution of exchange deeds by the Nellore Municipal Corporation in favour of the respondents 7 to 9 the petitioners herein have filed suit for partition vide O.S. No. 140 of 2013 on the file District Judge Nellore. 5. 6. Nellore Municipality Corporation filed three suits on 09.02.2016 for cancellation of the Registered Exchange Deeds dated 23.02.2013 while the suits are pending then the state government has cancelled 4 the G.O. Ms No. 823 and issued another government order vide G.O. Ms. No: 140 MA & UD (HI) department dated 07.06.2016 identifying another land to an extent of Ac. 0.28 cents. The 7’*^ respondent herein once again has filed W.P. No. 36710 of 2017 questioning the G.O. Ms. No: 140 MA & UD (HI) Department. The writ petition was disposed relegating the petitioners to the mediation, in the mediation proceedings the 7**^ respondent refused to 7. accept the G.O.Ms.No. 140 MA & UD (HI) Department and requested to allot any other land or otherwise to pay compensation under the Act 30 of 2013 i.e., The "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The high court in W.P. No. 36716 of 2016, 43813 of 2017 and 13885 of 2018 and 46011 of 2018 has directed the respondents authorities to press in the service of provisions and directed to pay the compensation under the provisions of The "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity hereafter called as Act) rd 8. As directed by this Court in the above writ petitions the 3 respondent issued notices under Section 22 (1) of the act to the respondents 7 to 9 to present on 14.11.2023 with objections with respect to the notice schedule property. 5 petitioners have submitted a comprehensive representation to the third respondents regarding their interest in the property. As their request was not addressed, the petitioners were compelled to file W.P. No. 31316 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed vide order dated 03.04.2024, directing the third respondent to provide an opportunity of hearing to both the writ petitioners and respondents 7 to 9. If the writ petitioners' claim is determined to be valid or genuine, the matter should be referred to the relevant 9. The authority under the act. After reviewing the order, the 3'"' respondent-Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, in the order, it is noted that K.Muralidhar Reddy (R-7) has been disputing the issue with the government (inverse condemnation) for the past 34 years and that the land in question has been in continuous possession. The petitioners have remained passive observers, with petitioner No-2, N. Subhasini Reddy, has not put forth claim before the authorities of Nellore Municipal Corporation nor any other competent forum and the claimants when the petitioners are disputing the oral partition dated 24.08.1992 ought to have been challenged before competent of law for their remedy and The Land Acquisition Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer concluded that the land belongs to respondent No.7, 10. 6 1/^' K. Muralidhar Reddy, and rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioners. 11. The said order dated 30.08.2024 of the respondent Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer has been assailed in the present writ petition on the grounds that: (i) That the 3rd respondent has not only exceeded and transgressed his jurisdiction but also overreached the direction of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 31316 of 2023 dated 03.04.2024. (ii) The suit O.S. No: 140 of 2013 on the file of the District Judge Nellore is filed for partition to the extents of the land allotted in lieu of the joint property acquired by the government vide exchange deeds vide Doc. No: 2113 of 2013 Doc. No: 2112 of 2013 and Doc. No: 2111 / 2013 dated 23.02.2013 executed in favour of 7 to 9 respondents herein respectively. Latter the said deeds were cancelled by the government vide G.O. Ms. No: 140 MA & UD (HI) department dated 07.06.2016 and conversantly agreed to receive compensation, the dismissal of the suit for non prosecution will not operate as res judicata, as the cause of action in the present case is different. The petitioners have a share under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, and the alleged oral partition is invalid since the petitioners have not signed or agreed to it. Hence prayed to set aside the impugned order and to direct to refer the issue for % adjudication to the competent authority under section 76 of the Act. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel K. Muralidhar Reddy, for respondent No. 7 and on behalf of respondents 8 and 9, would submit that the writ petitioners are fence-sitters and have not contested the proceedings with the government. Mere issuance of a notice under sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the petitioners does not entitle them to claim ownership of the subject property. The said contention is baseless, and it is not the case of the petitioners that their names were notified in the Section 6 declaration. Furthermore, the suit O.S. No.140 of 2013, pending before the District Judge, Nellore, operates as res judicata. The writ petitioners should have filed an amendment petition for modification of relief instead of allowing the suit to be dismissed for prosecution. non- 13. And it is further contention of the learned counsel for respondents relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan^ and in Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab^ a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. In exercise of AIR 1964 SC 477 ^(1976) 2 see 868 8 power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an order of administrative authority, more particularly made in exercise of quasi-judicial power, can be tested and writ court interfere only if Court comes to a conclusion that there is error of jurisdiction or decision is perverse. Writ Court does not sit appellate authority over such decision. Thus, judicial confined to jurisdictional error and perversity of decision. The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision perse. This limitation necessarily means that the findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal is a result of appreciation of evidence, which cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law, which is apparent on the face of the record, can be corrected by a writ but not an error of fact however grave it may appear to be. may as review is The 3'^^ respondent has rightly rejected the plea of the writ petitioner as the writ petitioners are not able to make out any genuine claim. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim order 14. Heard learned designate senior counsel Sri O.Manoher Reddy for Counsel on record Sri C. Subodh for petitioners and learned counsel Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy for respondent No-8 and Sri 15. 9 X T.Lakshmi Narayana for respondents 7 & 8 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No-3. 16. POINT FOR consideration : The primary contention of the un-official respondents 7 to 9 is that the petitioners cannot claim any compensation on the ground the suit filed for partition was dismissed as it operates as resjudicata. The Apex Court in State Of U.P. & Am vs Jagdish Saran Agrawal & Ors held that the Order IX Rule 9 cannot be said to be applicable. The dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution was not a decision on merit. Consequently, the said order cannot operate resjudicata. 17. as 18. Order IX Rule 9 of CPC no doubt, precludes a plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit in the event the suit is dismissed for non- appearance of the plaintiff when the suit is called for hearing and the defendant is present. It is, however, to be stated here that the bar for filing a fresh suit would be in filed in respect of the same cause of action respect of a subsequent suit which is X009 (1) see 689 10 It has to be noticed here that the Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Vs Rajeshwar Prasad and Others'^ has held as 19. follows: "It follows, therefore, that if the right of redemption is not extinguished, the provision like Order IX Rule 9 of CPC will not debar the mortgagor from filing a second suit because as in a partition suit, the cause of action in a redemption suit is a recurring one. This cause of action in each successive action, until the right of redemption is extinguished or a suit for redemption is time barred is a different one." 20. In the light of this declaration of law, it is clear that the cause of action in a partition suit is a recurring action and the cause of action in each successive action would be a different one until the right has been adjudicated upon. Thus, Order IX Rule 9 of CPC would not be a bar for the filing of a second suit for partition. According to the aforementioned principle, the petitioners' right to claim compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer is unimpeded or unhindered. 21. As observed by the Privy Council in Mohd. Khalil Khan Mahbub Aii Miya^, if the evidence to support the two claims is different than the causes of action are also different. vs. " 2023 see Online 256 ® 1948 see Online PO 44 11 And the cause of action must be distinguished from the evidence upon which, that cause of action is proved and though the one has no relation to the other, still the nature of the cause of action may be indicated by the nature of the evidence by which it supported. The issue shall be decided strictly on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties in accordance with law. 22. IS 23. The suit O.S. No. 140 of 2013 on the file of the District Judge, Nellore, filed by the writ petitioners has become virtually rendered infructuous due to the subsequent act of the government in cancelling the documents executed in favour of respondents 7 to 9. The petitioners cannot presume that the authorities will pay compensation or allot alternative land in lieu of the cancelled documents executed in favour of respondents 7 to 9. Hence it has become necessary to amend the prayer in the suit to seek a direction for payment of compensation. 24. It should not be overlooked that the authorities initially granted land in lieu of the property acquired, which was joint family property. No legal partition has taken place to date, and the writ petitioners have a share in the said property. This fact is admitted by respondents 7 to 9, who have stated that although the suit for partition 12 -3 fifed by the petitioners was dismissed by a competent court for non prosecution, it nonetheless indicates that the petitioners had a claim to the property. The dismissal of the suit does not, by itself, negate their share in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above as it does not operate as resjudicata . Furthermore, the issuance of notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the writ petitioners is a prima facie admission by the authorities that the petitioners have an interest in the property. 25. Inheritance or succession to a property is governed by statutory law. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. In Civil Law, when there is a dispute between the rival parties touching upon the title to the property, the competent forum would be only the Civil Court. 26. It is pertinent to note that, this Court, in W.P. No. 31316 of 2023, by order dated 03.04.2024, directed the 3'"^ respondent that if the claim is found to be genuine, the issue shall be referred to the appropriate authority under the Right to Fair Compensation Act. However, instead of referring the matter to the competent authority under the Act, the 3rd respondent has ventured to decide the issue of title, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction, transgressing the provisions of -/ 13 % law, and overreaching the finding of this Court in W.P. No. 31316 of 2023. 27. Whether the claim of the petitioners is barred by limitation is a rd question of fact, which requires evidence to be adjudicated. As the 3 rd respondent is not competent to decide the issue of title, the 3 respondent has clearly acted beyond his jurisdiction. The learned / rd counsel for the unofficial respondents contended that if the 3 respondent passes an order beyond his jurisdiction, this court is empowered to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ of certiorari. In the presentcase, since the 3rd respondent has acted in excess of his jurisdiction and passed the impugned order contrary to law, hence this court finds it is appropriate to exercises its certiorari jurisdiction. 28. Hence, after giving thoughtful consideration to the above discussion, this Court sets aside the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the 3^^ respondent. The Court further directs the 3'^'^ respondent to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for adjudication of the relief claimed by the writ petitioners. V -O 'v- 14 29. Accordingly, the Writ Petition order as to costs. is allowed. There shall be no As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/. K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1 • The Principal Department (Land Acquisition) Guntur District 2. The District Collector, 3. The Land Acquisition Secretary, state of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Revenue Amavarathi, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. Officer, and Revenue Divisional Officer, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. 4. The Commissioner Andhra Pradesh, Gu2 n Govt, of 5. The Director of Country Guntur. and Town Planning, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, 6. The Commissioner Nellore District. One CC to SRI C SUBODH Advocate [OPUCJ ' pTde";*;," --—'-'OH High Courf of Andhra 10 on" CC r S,' lOPUC, Nellore Municipal Corporation . Nellore, SPSR HIGH COURT DATED:14/10/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20569 OF 2024 ^ 31 OCT 2025 iNNi;ujTent Sectiojjx^5^ Co ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS