Estates Authority Can't Adjudicate Proceedings Involving Deceased Party Without Legal Heirs Being Brought On Record: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that estates authority cannot continue and decide proceedings against deceased persons without their legal representatives being first brought on record, and that such proceedings are void and a nullity in law. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128]The Court further held that the same authority which passed the original order cannot subsequently hear an appeal against...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that estates authority cannot continue and decide proceedings against deceased persons without their legal representatives being first brought on record, and that such proceedings are void and a nullity in law. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128]
The Court further held that the same authority which passed the original order cannot subsequently hear an appeal against its own decision, as it violates the rule against bias embodied in the maxim "nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no one should be a judge in their own cause)”.
A single judge bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam allowed a writ petition challenging an order passed under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
Explaining why the impugned order was legally unsustainable, the Court held:
"Unless the applications filed for bringing the legal representatives on record are first adjudicated, the authority could not have proceeded to decide the main proceedings. The very continuation of the proceedings against deceased persons, without substitution of their legal representatives, is contrary to the settled procedure known to law.
The very same authority cannot assume the role of an appellate authority and sit in appeal over its own decision. Such an exercise would be in flagrant violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice embodied in the maxim 'Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa', and the order would be liable to be quashed as being void ab initio."
The petitioner challenged a common order rejecting two revision petitions, contending that it had been passed against five deceased revision petitioners without first deciding pending applications to bring their legal representatives on record.
The petitioner also argued that the officer who had passed the impugned order was later vested with appellate powers over that very order.
The State submitted that the officer was entrusted with the additional charge of the appellate authority due to administrative exigencies. It also contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal and had not impleaded the necessary parties.
Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 confers civil court powers on the Tribunal, making Order XXII CPC on substitution of legal representatives applicable.
Examining the record, the Court found that the authority decided the revision against deceased persons without first deciding the pending applications for substitution of their legal representatives.
Referring to the statutory scheme, the Court held that the authority was bound to follow the procedure under Order XXII CPC before deciding the main proceedings.
The Court consequently quashed the common order, remitted the matter to the Commissioner and Director of Settlements for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice, and directed disposal within six months.
Case Title: N.S. Kirana Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 12287 of 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.A. Narasimham
Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue