A statutory appeal under Section 10(i) of the A.P. Land Encroachments Act, 1905, must be exhausted before seeking relief under Article 226 against orders under Section 6. The High Court affirms the existing precedent, clarifying that writ petitions will ordinarily not be entertained unless such remedies are first invoked. The ruling is binding authority for matters regarding maintainability of writ petitions in the context of statutory appellate remedies under land encroachment proceedings in Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/30463/2025 of CHAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| CNR | APHC010589522025 |
| Date of Registration | 03-11-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Justice D RAMESH |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the existing requirement of exhausting the remedy of appeal under Section 10(i) of the Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226 |
| Type of Law | Administrative and Land Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when a statutory appellate remedy under Section 10(i) of the A.P. Land Encroachments Act, 1905 exists |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 10(i) of the A.P. Land Encroachments Act, a writ petition challenging an order under Section 6 of the Act is not maintainable. The petitioner is required to exhaust the appeal remedy. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, with protective directions regarding limitation and status quo pending interim relief. This approach reaffirms the principle that writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised when adequate statutory remedies exist. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged proceedings under Section 6 of the Act relating to land located in Sy.No.1194, alleging a discrepancy in the extent of land covered by the order and the notice. The court noted that statutory remedy under Section 10(i) was available but not availed by the petitioner. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts interpreting maintainability of writ petitions vis-à-vis statutory remedies |
| Follows | Follows established law on non-maintainability of writ where alternate remedy exists |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the need to exhaust statutory appeal remedy under Section 10(i) of the A.P. Land Encroachments Act, 1905, before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
- Clarifies that if an appeal is filed within the stipulated period (as granted by the High Court), limitation should not be a bar.
- Provides interim protection by directing maintenance of status quo until the application for stay in the appeal is decided, indicating the possibility of urgent relief within statutory forums.
- Serves as a clear precedent to be cited when contesting maintainability of writ petitions where statutory remedies under special Acts exist.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner challenged the order under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachments Act on grounds of discrepancy between the impugned order and the notice.
- The court acknowledged the discrepancy alleged by the petitioner but highlighted the existence of a statutory appellate remedy under Section 10(i) of the Act.
- The court followed the established jurisprudence that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable when the aggrieved party has not exhausted available statutory remedies, unless exceptional circumstances exist (not found here).
- Liberty was granted to file an appeal within two weeks, with a protective order that delay would not be a bar, and interim relief (status quo) to operate till the stay application is decided.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that there is a discrepancy in the extent of land as specified in the show cause notice under Section 7 and the order passed under Section 6 of the Act.
Respondent (State/Revenue Authorities)
- No specific arguments by the State are recorded in the judgment extract, only that the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue was heard.
Factual Background
The petitioner, owner/occupant of land in Sy.No.1194, challenged proceedings initiated under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachments Act, 1905 by the Tahsildar regarding an extent of 0.10 acres at Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The petitioner alleged there was a discrepancy between the land extent mentioned in the notice under Section 7 and the order under Section 6. The impugned proceedings were not preceded by recourse to the statutory appellate remedy.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachments Act, 1905 empowers revenue authorities to pass orders relating to land encroachment disputes.
- Section 10(i) provides a remedy of statutory appeal against such orders.
- The court’s order is based on a strict and direct reading of these statutory provisions, reinforcing the sequence and hierarchy of remedies set out in the legislative scheme.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court granted liberty to file the statutory appeal within two weeks and directed that limitation should not operate as a bar if complied with.
- Status quo directions were granted until the disposal of the interim application in the appeal, providing interim protection during appellate proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms settled law on maintainability of writ petitions when statutory remedies exist.