APHC010349702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3603] FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 836 OF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the interim order dated 19.06.2026 passed in W.P. No. 15465 of 2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge for the following among other Between: 1. M RAJASEKHAR, S/O. DAVID, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC GOVERNMENT SERVANT OFFICE AT TAHASILDAR OFFICE, RAJAM, RAJAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT-535001. ...APPELLANT AND 1. B SURESH, S/O SRI ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. GURLA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (SERVICES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI-522238. 3. THE CIHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM-535001. 5. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM-535001. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT- 533350. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the interim order dated 19.06.2026 passed in W.P. No. 15465 of 2026, and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to permit the Petitioner/Appellant to file the additional documents and pass IA NO: 3 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the interim order dated 19.06.2026 passed in W.P. No. 15465 of 2026 by the Learned Single Judge, insofar as the same suspends the operation of the proceedings bearing Rc.No.1861/2026-2/A7 dated 03.06.2026 issued Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. C V R RUDRA PRASAD The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 836 OF 2026 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh) The present Writ Appeal is filed assailing the interim order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.15465 of 2026, whereby the learned Single Judge passed the following order: "(i) The impugned proceedings issued vide Rc.No.1861/2026- 2/A7, dated 03.06.2026, are hereby suspended. (ii) The petitioner shall be continued at his erstwhile place of posting in terms of the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Chief Land Administration (CCLA) in CCLA Procgs.No.REV02- 32/78/2026-SERII-SEC-CCLA, dated 03.06.2026." 2. Respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner. He filed W.P. No.15465 of 2026 challenging the proceedings issued by the District Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram District, whereby respondent No.6 in the writ petition (the appellant herein) was retain in Vizianagaram District as Tahsildar and the writ petitioner was directed to report before the competent authority in Alluri Sitarama Raju District in the place of respondent No.6. According to the writ petitioner, the said proceedings were contrary to the proceedings dated 03.06.2026 issued by the Commissioner of Chief Land Administration (CCLA), who is the competent authority. 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that, pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the CCLA issued proceedings dated 03.06.2026, promoting Deputy Tahsildars by transfer as Tahsildars and allotting them to various districts. Under the said proceedings, the writ petitioner was promoted and allotted to Vizianagaram District, whereas the appellant was promoted and allotted to Alluri Sitarama Raju District. 4. According to the writ petitioner, instead of implementing the allotments made by the competent authority, the District Collector, citing administrative exigencies, issued proceedings dated 03.06.2026, retaining the appellant in Vizianagaram District and directing the writ petitioner to report at Alluri Sitarama Raju District. The said action was subsequently ratified by proceedings dated 10.06.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner approached this Court. Upon considering the submissions made by the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the interim order referred to above. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 in the writ petition has preferred the present Writ Appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, although the District Collector may not have been the competent authority to modify the allotment made by the CCLA, the impugned proceedings were issued only on account of administrative exigencies. It is submitted that the appellant was temporarily accommodated in Vizianagaram District, while requesting respondent No.1 to report at Alluri Sitarama Raju District, and the matter was simultaneously brought to the notice of the competent authority. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the proceedings of the District Collector dated 03.06.2026 were subsequently ratified by the Commissioner of Chief Land Administration through proceedings dated 10.06.2026. It is contended that once the action of the District Collector stood ratified by the competent authority, such ratification would relate back to the date of the original order and validate the action taken. Therefore, according to the appellant, the learned Single Judge was not justified in suspending the impugned proceedings. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner contended that the District Collector had absolutely no jurisdiction to alter or modify the allotments made by the CCLA. It is submitted that the District Collector could not have directed the writ petitioner to report in another district over which he had no territorial or administrative jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be validated merely by subsequent ratification. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the CCLA, being the competent authority, had considered the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and issued proceedings dated 03.06.2026 promoting and allotting the officers to their respective districts based on seniority and other relevant considerations. Once such allotments were made by the competent authority, the same could not have been altered or modified by the District Collector on the ground of administrative exigencies without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. 9. The contention of the appellant about the subsequent ratification cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The issue is not merely one of ratification but of inherent lack of jurisdiction. An order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be sustained only on the basis of subsequent ratification. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings dated 03.06.2026 issued by respondent No.4 and the consequential proceedings dated 10.06.2026 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, instead of continuing the interim order, the writ petition itself is disposed of by setting aside the proceedings dated 03.06.2026 and 10.06.2026. 11. However, having regard to the administrative exigencies pointed out by the District Collector, it is appropriate to remand the matter to respondent No.3, namely, the Commissioner of Chief Land Administration, for fresh consideration. Respondent No.3 shall examine the entire issue independently and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to both the appellant and respondent No.1 to submit their respective representations before respondent No.3, if so advised, before appropriate orders are passed. 12. In view of the disposal of the writ petition itself, the present Writ Appeal does not survive for further consideration and is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed. ____________ D.RAMESH, J ____________________ ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J Dated:17.07.2026 TJN 120 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 836 OF 2026 Dated: 17.07.2026 TJN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 836 OF 2026 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 17.7.2026 DR, J & AGD, J The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. (Vide Separate Judgment) _______ DR, J _______ AGD, J TJN