As per case facts, the dispute involved an extent of land in Jatprole Jagir, which was abolished in 1949. The Pattedars (legal representatives of the last Jagirdar) claimed the land ... as their private patta land, asserting continuous possession and payment of land revenue since 1949, while the Forest Department claimed it as forest land vested in the State. After a rectification order in favor of the Pattedars based on re-survey and various inquiries, and subsequent land acquisition attempts that were withdrawn, the Chief Conservator of Forest filed a Writ Petition challenging the Commissioner's order. A separate declaratory suit was also filed by the Pattedars. Both the Writ Petition and the appeal against the trial court's judgment in the suit were dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.The question arose regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, specifically whether an individual officer or department can sue or be sued in their own name when the State is the necessary party, and whether the Pattedars' long possession established ownership under the Evidence Act.Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Writ Petition filed by the Chief Conservator of Forest was not maintainable as the State of Andhra Pradesh, being the necessary juristic person, was not named as the petitioner. The Court emphasized that departments must act in coordination and that inter-departmental disputes should be resolved internally. The Court also affirmed that the Pattedars' long and peaceful possession, supported by evidence of land revenue payments, created a presumption of ownership under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, which the State failed to rebut. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the Pattedars' title to the land.