“Revenue Orders Cannot Be Passed Behind the Backs of Affected Landholders” – Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes RDO Order for Breach of Natural Justice in Major Land Dispute

“Violation of Natural Justice Vitiates the Entire Proceeding – Land Rights Cannot Be Decided in Silence” – Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant land dispute involving Survey Nos. 212/8 and 212/15 of Damineedu Village, Tirupati, struck down an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tirupati dated 09.06.2023 for having been made in flagrant violation of natural justice.

Delivering a reportable judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 487, 551, 554 of 2024 and Writ Petition Nos. 10079, 11189 and 23605 of 2024, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam held that the RDO’s order, which overturned a 2014 Tahsildar decision recognising the possession rights of multiple landholders, had been passed without issuing notice to those directly affected, rendering the order “unsustainable in law.”

The Court declared, “Any appeal affecting property rights of individuals recorded in revenue documents cannot be disposed of ex parte. To do so is a grave breach of natural justice and renders the order invalid.”

The controversy centered on nearly 174 acres of land in Survey No. 212, Damineedu Village — an Inam estate village governed by the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. In 1969, joint ryotwari pattas were granted by the Settlement Officer in favour of four original Inamdars and Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi, based on an unregistered agreement of sale for 50 acres.

Subsequently, in 1981, the Tahsildar at Chandragiri carried out sub-division of the land, recognising the names of each party, including K. Jaya Lakshmi, in various sub-survey numbers, including 212/8 and 212/15. These subdivisions stood unchallenged for decades and formed the basis of later transactions.

However, a series of disputed subdivisions and mutations in 2011 prompted legal action from both sides — descendants of the original Inamdars, purchasers claiming through Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy, and successors of K. Jaya Lakshmi. The dispute intensified after the Tahsildar’s order dated 24.05.2014 recognised the possession rights of 14 individuals over various extents of land in the two key survey numbers.

This order, which followed a prior remand direction from the RDO in 2013, was then set aside by the RDO on 09.06.2023, at the request of K. Jaya Lakshmi and her children, but without issuing notice to the 14 affected persons.

Natural Justice Cannot Be Sacrificed Even in Revenue Matters

The High Court held in clear terms that the RDO had committed a jurisdictional error by failing to put the beneficiaries of the 2014 Tahsildar order on notice before deciding the appeal filed against it.

Quoting directly from the judgment, the Bench observed:

“It is clear from the Tahsildar’s order dated 24.05.2014 that various persons, including some of the petitioners and appellants herein, had appeared and were heard. Their possession was recognised. Any appeal filed against such an order could not have been decided behind their backs.”

The Court went on to underscore that natural justice is not a formality but a foundational requirement, stating:

“Orders which affect the enjoyment or ownership of immovable property cannot be made without affording an opportunity of hearing to those who stand recorded in possession.”

The Bench refused to accept the argument that setting aside the RDO’s order would revive an “illegal” Tahsildar order, clarifying that:

“The Tahsildar’s order of 2014 was not a void or illegal order. It was passed after full enquiry and pursuant to earlier RDO directions. Whether it is correct or not is a separate question, but it cannot be brushed aside as illegal per se.”

Court Reaffirms Limited Role of Revenue Authorities in Title Disputes

In addressing the merits, the High Court reiterated that questions of ownership and title cannot be conclusively decided by revenue officials. The Bench observed:

“The revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate title disputes. They may record possession for administrative purposes, but ownership must be determined by the civil courts or Land Grabbing Tribunal.”

This observation gained significance in view of pending proceedings in LGOP No. 200 of 2022, filed by K. Jaya Lakshmi and family, and the earlier civil suit (O.S. No. 92/2013), which had been dismissed for default.

“The RDO’s final order, if any, shall be subject to the outcome of judicial proceedings. The parties are at liberty to seek a declaration from the competent civil forum or tribunal.”

1981 Sub-Divisions Form the Baseline for Reassessment

Another major facet of the ruling was the Court’s emphasis on the finality of the 1981 sub-divisions, which had never been challenged or altered through legal proceedings.

“The original sub-divisional entries made in 1981, which were based on the Settlement Officer’s patta order of 1969, were never under challenge and must be treated as the baseline for further inquiry.”

The Court, therefore, directed the RDO to restore these entries and undertake a fresh examination of possession and title, based on evidence and after hearing all concerned.

Due Process Is the Cornerstone of Land Governance

In a judgment that blends legal tradition with modern administrative caution, the Andhra Pradesh High Court firmly held that procedural fairness cannot be discarded even in seemingly bureaucratic land proceedings.

The Court declared: “Violation of principles of natural justice is not a mere irregularity — it goes to the root of the matter and renders the order non est in the eyes of law.”

As a result, the impugned RDO order dated 09.06.2023 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with explicit directions that no party shall be condemned unheard, and that any future order shall remain subject to judicial proceedings.

All connected writ appeals were declared infructuous and disposed of.

Date of Decision: 23 July 2025