APHC010645062025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3529]

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1381/2025

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above named

Appellants present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against aggrieved by the

order, dated 14.10.2025 made in W.P.No.20569 of 2024 passed by the

learned single judge for the following among and other

Between:

1. K MURALIDHAR REDDY, S/O K. R. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67

YEARS. ADVOCATE AND R/O. 88, SRT, MUNICIPAL COLONY,

MALAKPET, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 806. TOWER

NO. 6, EIPL CORNERSTONE, PUPPALAGUDA, H YDERABAD,

TELANGANA STATE.

...APPELLANT

AND

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, STATE OF TELANGANA.

2. SMT G USHA REDDY, W/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60

YEARS, R/O.D.N0.25 -1C-466, FLAT NO.302, 4TH FLOOR,

G.S.TOWERS, VEDAYAPALEM, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE

DISTRICT. 3.

3. SMT KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 77

YEARS, R/O MEHADIPATNAM, HYDERABA D, TELANGANA STATE,

2

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, GODALA PRATHYUSH REDDY, R/O

FLAT NO. 503, PARK STONE ENCLAVE, SAPPHIRE BLOCK, INDIRA

NAGAR, ISCON CITY, KONDAYAPALEM, NELLORE, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT. (PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 4.

4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADES H, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY

REVENUE DEPARTMENT LAND ACQUISITION, AP SECRETARIAT,

AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (R1) 5.

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE.

(R2

6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL

OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. (R3) 7.

7. THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

GUNTUR. (R4) 8.

8. THE DIRECTOR OF COUNTRY AND TOWN PLANNING,

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR. (R5) 9.

9. THE NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NELLORE, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. (R

...RESPONDENT(S):

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 e

pleased to PERMIT the Appellants herein to file Additional material i.e.. Copy

of i) the District Gazette, Nellore dated: 05.10.1995, ii) regd. Exchange deed

of the 2ND appellant dated 31.01.2013along with the English Translation, iii)

cancellation of allotment order in GO Ms No. 140 of 2016 dated: 02.06.2016,

iv) the Lok - Adalat Award made in favour of 2'^^ appellant dated: 10.07.2021,

v) cancellation of regd. Exchange deeds dated: 20.11.2021 along with

English Translation, vi) Dismiss for default order passed in partition suit in OS

No. 140 of 2013 dated: 21.07.2025, vii) Preliminary Notification issued by the

District Collector, Nellore dated: 30.06.2023, viii) Final Notification issued by

the District Collector, Nellore dated: 11.09.2023, ix) Award passed by the

LAO dated:21.08.2025, x) Copy of GPA of the 3RD appellant and bring the

3

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

same on record and consider the same while adjudicating the above Writ

Appeal or to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

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 impugned order dated 14.10.2025 made in WP No.

20569 of 2024, pending disposal of the writ appeal and to pass

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

3. C SUBODH

4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

Date of Reserved : 05.01.2026

Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

Date of Upload : 07.01.2026

4

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

The Court made the following Judgment:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri N. Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri

Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri O. Manohar

Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel

appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for

Land Acquisition appearing for the official respondents.

2. One late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy was the owner of about 317

Ankanams of land situated at C.A.S. No.214 of Venkatrampuram, Nellore

Town. He passed away leaving behind his three sons and three daughters. It

appears that the three sons sold away about 100 Ankanams of land, by way of

registered deed of sale in the year 1993. Thereafter, the remaining land,

admeasuring about 217 Ankanams was sought to be acquired, for

construction of an under-bridge beneath a railway gate. The Nellore

Municipality (subsequently Municipal Corporation) issued a notification on

05.04.1994, calling upon the legal heirs of late Sri Radha Krishna Reddy to

appear before the Municipal Commissioner for negotiations. At that stage, the

three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy are said to have proposed an

exchange of land instead of monetary compensation. A Negotiation

Committee considered this offer and initially proposed allotment of Ac.2.36

cents of land in lieu of the 217 Ankanams of land sought to be taken over by

the Municipality. After further consideration, the extent of land was reduced to

5

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

Ac.1.76 cents, situated at three different places. This proposal was accepted

by the Municipal Council by its resolution, dated 21.07.1996. However, this

proposal was rejected by the Government when it was sent for approval and

the Government, by way of G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 08.10.1997, modified the

proposal reducing the extent of land to Ac.1.06 cents. Being aggrieved by this

reduction, one of the sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy moved

W.P.No.35515 of 1997 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the three daughters of late Sri K.

Radha Krishna Reddy impleaded themselves in the Writ Petition, contending

that they also had a claim over the property. A learned Single of the erstwhile

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by an order, dated 25.10.2002, had allowed

the Writ Petition, setting aside G.O.Rt.No.802, with a further direction to the

Government to reconsider the request and to send it back to the Municipal

Council, if any modification is required. W.A.Nos.1052 and 1049 of 2004 filed

against this order came to be dismissed.

3. Thereafter, the three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy

approached the Nellore Municipality stating that the land, that was proposed

to be taken over, had been partionedbetween the three sons of late Sri K.

Radha Krishna Reddy and that an alternative land should be given to them.

The Municipal Council, on the basis of this representation and on the ground

that there was an oral partition between the three sons of late Sri K. Radha

Krishna Reddy, which came to be reduced to writing, by way of a document,

6

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

dated 24.08.1992, had decided to execute three separate deeds of exchange.

The said deeds of exchange were executed in the year 2013.

4. At that stage, the daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy

filed O.S.No.140 of 2013 before the District Judge, Nellore. The prayer in the

said suit was to direct the three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy

(defendants 1 to 3 therein) to partition the suit schedule A, B & C items of

property allotted by the Municipality under the exchange deeds into six equal

shares and to put the three daughters in possession, of two shares, by

passing a preliminary decree. This suit came to be dismissed for default.

5. In a parallel proceeding, the Nellore Municipal Corporation took a

decision to cancel the deeds of exchange and also filed three suits on

09.02.2016 for such cancellation and it appears that two of these suits were

decreed. The Nellore Municipal Corporation had taken up cancellation

proceedings on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 02.06.2016. Aggrieved by

this Government Order, the three sons of Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy had

filed four separate Writ Petitions, bearing W.P.Nos.36710 of 2016, 43813 of

2017, 12885 of 2018 &46011 of 2018. A learned Single judge of this Court, by

Judgment, dated 04.03.2021, had disposed of the said Writ Petitions directing

the respondents, namely the Nellore Municipal Corporation and other

respondents therein, to acquire the original land held by late Sri K. Radha

Krishna Reddy, by way of acquisition proceedings under Act 30 of 2013. It

7

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

would have to be noted that the three daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna

Reddy were not party to the said Writ Petitions.

6. Pursuant to these directions, acquisition proceedings were

initiated under Act 30 of 2013. In this process, notices under Section 21(1) of

Act 30 of 2013, dated 06.11.2023, were issued calling upon interested

persons to give their claim for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement.

At that stage, two of the daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy

approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.31316 of 2023, contending that they

had not been issued notices under Section 21 (1) and they were entitled to be

heard in the matter. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the

petitioners as well as the sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy, had

disposed of the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 03.04.2024. The direction of

the learned Single Judge, in this case, was that the Acquisition Officer would

pass appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with law by considering

the material before the Officer including the claims of the petitioners and by

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to respondents

7 to 10 therein. The said respondents 7 to 10 were the three sons of late Sri K.

Radha Krishna Reddy and the third daughter, who had been impleaded as a

respondent.

7. Pursuant to this order, the Land Acquisition Officer, after hearing

all the necessary parties, had passed an order, dated 30.08.2024. In this

order, the Land Acquisition Officer took the view that the daughters of late Sri

8

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

K. Radha Krishna Reddy had raised belated claims and that they had never

participated in any of the proceedings before the Authorities while the

acquisition of this land was going on. The Acquisition Officer also took the

view that the daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy, not having

challenged the exchange deeds, cannot raise any claim over the property. On

that basis, the Acquisition Officer rejected the claims of the daughters of late

Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy.

8. Aggrieved by this order, dated 30.08.2024, the three daughters of

Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy moved this Court, by way of W.P.No.20569 of

2024. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing all the concerned

parties, including the sons and daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy,

had allowed the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 14.10.2025. In this order, the

order of the Acquisition Officer, dated 30.08.2024 came to be set aside, with a

further direction to the Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Competent

Authority, under Sections 64 or 76 of Act 30 of 2013.

9. Aggrieved by this Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the

three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy, who are arrayed as

respondents 7 to 9 in the Writ Petition, have approached this Court, by way of

the present Writ Appeal.

10. Sri N. Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants, primarily contended that the learned Single Judge, in the course of

9

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

considering the contentions raised by both sides, had given findings of fact,

wherein the claims of the daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy were

accepted, and such findings would vitiate any further hearing in the matter

under Act 30 of 2013. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that

Section 76 of Act 30 of 2013 would not be applicable and it would only be

Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013, which would be applicable, even if such a

situation were to arise. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that

the finding of the learned Single Judge that the 3

rd

respondent-Acquisition

Officer, did not have any jurisdiction, would not be correct, inasmuch as the 3

rd

respondent-Acquisition Officer had conducted an enquiry on the basis of the

directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation,

in W.P.No.31316 of 2023.

11. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

three daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy, who are arrayed as

respondents 1 to 3 herein, contends that the order of the Acquisition Officer is

clearly beyond jurisdiction inasmuch as the direction of the learned Single

Judge was only to consider the claims. The learned Senior Counsel would

further contend that once disputed questions of fact on the right and title over

the land had been raised, the only option left to the Acquisition Officer was to

refer the matter to the Competent Authority constituted under Section 52 of

the Act. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon Section 64 as well

as Section 76 of Act 30 of 2013, apart from Section 63 of the Act to contend

10

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

that it is only the Competent Authority, who would have jurisdiction to go into

the question of title.

12. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel would

contend that the three daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy had been

raising their claim, that they are entitled to a share in the property of late Sri K.

Radha Krishna Reddy, from 1997 itself. He would submit that the alleged oral

partition as well as the deed of partition, dated 24.08.1982 have been created

solely for the purpose of denying the daughters their share in the estate of

their father. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that O.S.No.140 of

2013 had been filed solely for the purpose of getting a share in the land which

had been allotted to the three sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy, in lieu

of the land taken over for construction of the under-bridge. As the said

allotment of land had been cancelled, no further purpose was served in

continuing O.S.No.140 of 2013 and the same was allowed to lapse.

13. A perusal of the above facts makes it clear that the daughters of

late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy had been agitating for their rights and claim

in the estate of their late father. The contention that they had kept silent

throughout the proceedings is belied by the fact that they impleaded

themselves in the Writ Petition filed in the year 1997 and also by filing

O.S.No.140 of 2013.

11

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

14. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.No.31316 of

2023 had directed the Acquisition Officer to consider the claims of the

daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy. Pursuant to this direction, the

Acquisition Officer has passed the order impugned in W.P.No.20569 of 2024.

However, a closer look at the said order is necessary. The learned Single

Judge had held as follows:

―8. Since the proceedings are at the stage of award

enquiry, this writ petition is disposed of, without going into

other aspects of the matter, directing respondent No.3 to pass

appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with law by

considering the material before the Officer including

petitioners’ claim and by affording an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 10. No costs.‖

15. The aforesaid order required the Acquisition Officer to consider

the material placed before him including the claim of the daughters and to

pass appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with law. In the present

case, the law would be the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. Section 64 and 76 of

Act 30 of 2013 are relevant and are as follows:

―64. Reference to Authority.–

(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award

may, by written application to the Collector, require that the

matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the

Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the

measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation,

12

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation

and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the

apportionment of the compensation among the persons

interested:

Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty

days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference

to the appropriate Authority:

Provided further that where the Collector fails to make

such reference within the period so specified, the applicant

may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it

to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a

period of thirty days.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which

objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made—

(a) if the person making it was present or represented

before the Collector at the time when he made his award,

within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the

notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six

months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever

period shall first expire:

Provided further that the Collector may entertain an

application after the expiry of the said period, within a further

period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient

cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first

proviso.

13

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

…

76. Dispute as to apportionment.–

When the amount of compensation has been settled, if any

dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part

thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part

thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such disputes to the

Authority.‖

16. Section 64 mandates that any dispute as to the right and claim

over the land, apart from other disputes, would have to be referred to the

Competent Authority set out under Section 52 of Act 30 of 2013. It would also

be necessary to notice Section 63 of Act 30 of 2013. This provision expressly

bars all other Courts, except the High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

in deciding the claims of any person over the land and vests that function

solely with the Competent Authority. The Acquisition Officer, having found that

there are contested claims over the property should have referred the dispute

to the Competent Authority. Instead, the Acquisition Officer misunderstood the

direction of the learned Single Judge and went on to decide the claims and

rights of the daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy over the said

property. This was clearly impermissible and was beyond his jurisdiction.

17. The learned Single Judge, having considered this aspect, had

held that the Acquisition Officer could not have decided these issues and

should have referred them to the Competent Authority.

14

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

18. The daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy have not been

included in the award proceedings, determining compensation. Further, the

daughters have also refused the said award as their claim for a share in the

compensation was not considered. This squarely brings them within the

provisions of Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013.

19. Sri N. Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants, who are the sons of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy, would also

contend that the learned Single Judge has given findings of fact which would

affectively preclude any realistic consideration of the claims of the appellants.

20. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, with the

following directions:

1) The order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed, subject to the

following modifications.

2) The 6

th

respondent-Acquisition Officer, in view of his finding that a

dispute over the title of the property has to be decided, shall refer the

matter for the consideration and decision of the Competent Authority

under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013.

3) The Competent Authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to

both the sons and the daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy,

shall pass orders, strictly in terms of Act 30 of 2013.

15

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

4) The Competent Authority shall not be bound or influenced by any

observation made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20569 of

2024 or by this Court, in the present Writ Appeal.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

Date: 07.01.2026

MJA

16

RRR, J & TCDS, J

W.A.No.1381 of 2025

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1381/2025

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

07.01.2026

MJA