In a significant verdict clarifying revisional jurisdiction under land revenue laws, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar, held that the competent revisional authority is not required to issue a prior show-cause notice before deciding to initiate suo motu revision proceedings under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Dismissing a writ appeal, the Division Bench ruled that statutory compliance is satisfied when the authority issues a single notice communicating the grounds of revision to affected parties prior to passing any adverse order. In doing so, the Bench expressly overruled a contrary view previously taken by a Single Judge of the High Court.
Background of the Case
The proceedings originated from a writ appeal filed by Durgam Paddaiah, Durgam Pamulu, and Durgam Ankamma Rao challenging an interim order dated August 12, 2026, passed by a Single Judge in I.A. No. 1 of 2026 in W.P. No. 20706 of 2026.
The appellants had filed the writ petition to challenge a revisional show-cause notice (ROC No. 2265/2026/D1) issued on June 25, 2026, under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 by the Joint Collector-cum-Revisional Authority, Guntur. The revisional authority had issued the notice following a representation made by private respondent Kolli Ranga Reddy on behalf of Kolli Chaitanya. Alongside the writ petition, the appellants moved an application for an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice.
The Single Judge declined to stay the proceedings, directing the appellants to raise all their contentions—including objections regarding jurisdiction—before the Joint Collector on the enquiry date. The Single Judge further instructed the Joint Collector to first decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding on the merits. Aggrieved by this direction, the appellants approached the Division Bench.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellants, counsel Sri P. Sai Surya Teja contended that before initiating suo motu proceedings, the revisional authority was mandatorily required to issue a preliminary notice proposing the initiation of such power. He submitted that because the notice was issued only after suo motu power had already been invoked, the Joint Collector lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
To support this contention, counsel relied upon a previous Single Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Healthy Agro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had drawn upon the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. D.N. Roy and S.K. Bannerjee and Others v. State of Bihar and Others. The appellants argued that without an initial notice to show cause as to why suo motu proceedings should not be initiated, the assumption of jurisdiction was void. Counsel also cited the Supreme Court judgment in Raza Textiles Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Rampur to argue that jurisdictional findings of a quasi-judicial authority remain subject to judicial review.
Opposing the appeal, Sri K. Dilip Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents 1 to 5, submitted that Section 9 of the Act, 1971 expressly empowers the authority to initiate revisional proceedings suo motu. He pointed out that the proviso to Section 9 mandates an opportunity of representation before an adverse order is made, while Rule 23(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 requires the grounds of revision to be communicated to persons likely to be affected. He contended that the notice complied with the statute, contained the specific issues and representations raised, and called for records and explanations. Therefore, no illegality existed in the notice, and the Single Judge had rightly permitted the appellants to place their defense before the Joint Collector.
The Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench formulated the primary question for consideration: whether the Joint Collector is required to issue a notice to the person likely to be adversely affected prior to initiating suo motu proceedings, or whether such notice is required to be issued only in the exercise of suo motu proceedings under Section 9 read with Rule 23(2).
Examining Section 9 of the Act, 1971, the Court observed that the statute vests revisional authority in the Collector either on an application or suo motu to satisfy itself of the regularity, correctness, legality, or propriety of any order passed under Sections 3, 5, 5-A, or 5-B. The proviso to Section 9 stipulates that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed unless an opportunity of making a representation is granted. Complementing this, Rule 23(2) of the Rules, 1989 dictates that where a suo motu revision is initiated, the grounds on which it is initiated shall be communicated to the persons likely to be affected.
The Bench emphasized that courts cannot introduce additional procedural burdens that are absent from the legislative text:
“The additional requirements, i.e., in addition to those prescribed by the statute or the rules, cannot be imposed which is not contemplated by the statute, as doing that, would amount to legislation by court which is ordinarily not permissible.”
The Court closely analyzed the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. D.N. Roy, distinguishing it from the present statutory framework. In D.N. Roy, the Supreme Court dealt with Rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which neither expressly provided for suo motu revision nor prescribed a statutory hearing mechanism for such power. In that context, the Central Government had recalled an earlier order without apprising the affected party that suo motu review was being undertaken. Hence, the Supreme Court had read natural justice principles into the silence of the rules.
In contrast, the Bench held that the Act, 1971 and the Rules, 1989 already codify these natural justice safeguards. Consequently, a two-stage notice process is neither required nor contemplated:
“In our considered view, for initiation of suo motu proceedings under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, there is no statutory requirement to issue a notice firstly calling upon the person concerned to show cause as to why the suo motu power should not be invoked and then secondly, to issue to the person or persons likely to be adversely affected, another show-cause notice communicating the grounds on which the power is to be exercised, in terms of proviso to Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 23(2) of the Rules, 1989, before any adverse order is passed. Only one notice is contemplated by the statute and in D.N. Roy (supra) also such one notice was the requirement for initiation of the suo moto proceedings.”
Turning to the Single Bench decision in Healthy Agro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the Division Bench found that it had misapplied the ratio of D.N. Roy by demanding a prior show-cause notice before invoking Section 9. The Bench explicitly overruled the precedent to that extent:
“The learned single Judge in Healthy Agro Enterprises Pvt Ltd., (supra), did not correctly apply M/s. D.N.Roy (supra). It also did not correctly laydown the law as has been reproduced above… We therefore are not in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge in the Healthy Agro Enterprises Pvt Ltd (supra) to that extent, we overrule the Healthy Agro Enterprises Pvt Ltd (supra) and hold that the compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of RoR Act by issuing notice read with Rule 23(2) of 1989 Rules is sufficient compliance.”
Regarding the appellants’ reliance on Raza Textiles Ltd., the Court observed that while judicial review of quasi-judicial orders is an established legal principle, the present case was only at the stage of a show-cause notice, which can be challenged in writ jurisdiction only on limited grounds such as total lack of jurisdiction.
Decision of the Court
The High Court rejected the appellants’ plea that a preliminary notice was mandatory before invoking suo motu revisional proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. Holding that the Joint Collector possessed competent jurisdiction and that the impugned notice complied with statutory mandates, the Bench dismissed the writ appeal.
The Court permitted the appellants to submit their objections and explanations to the notice before the revisional authority:
“The writ appellant may file objections/explanation to the said notice before the authority concerned which should consider and decide the matter pending before it in accordance with law, expeditiously and with due opportunity to the concerned parties.”
The Court directed copies of the order to be communicated to the District Collector and the Joint Collector-cum-Revisional Authority, Guntur District, and closed all pending miscellaneous petitions without costs.
Case Title: Durgam Paddaiah and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Amaravati and others
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 999 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar
Date: 20.08.2026
