APHC010838972017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3206]

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 34878/2017

Between:

1. T. BALI REDDY ( DIED), S/O T.OBILESU, AGED 86 YEARS, OCC

SENIOR ADVOCATE, R/O 51, M.I.G.H., MEHDIPATNAM,

HYDERABAD.

2. T. OBI REDDY ( DIED), S/O T.OBILESU, AGED 84 YEARS, R/O 7 -A,

JOURNALIST COLONY, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS,

HYDERABAD.

3. T.C. OBI REDDY,( DIED) AS PER L.RS P7 AND P8, S/O T.OBILESU,

AGED 78 YEARS, R/O JALALPURAM VILLAGE, SINGANAMALA

MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. T.RAJA MOHAN REDDY, S/O LATE T.OBI REDDY,, 601, BANDARI

RESIDENCY, UMA NAGAR, KUNDAN BAGH, BEGUMPET,

HYDERABAD. LR OF 2ND PETITIONER

5. T.VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE T.BALI REDDY,, AGED ABOUT 58

YEARS, OCC CA, R/O D.NO.154/A, MLA COLONY, ROAD NO.12,

BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD -500034.LR OF 1ST PETITIONER

6. T.NARESH KUMAR, S/O LATE T.BALI REDDY ,, AGED ABOUT 55

YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.112/A, MLA COLONY, ROAD

NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD -500034.LR OF 1ST

PETITIONER. PETITIONERS 4 TO 6 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD

AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED OF THE 2ND AND 1ST PETITIONERS

AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER D T.31.12.2024 IN I.A.NO.01, 02 OF

2022. RESPECTIVELY.

2

7. T. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY,, S/O LATE T.C.OBI REDDY, AGED

ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O JALALAPURAM VILLAGE, SINGANAMALA

MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

8. T.SRIKANTH,, S/O LATE T.C.OBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

R/O JALALAPURAM VILLAGE, SINGANAMALA MANDAL,

ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. PETITIONER NOS.7 AND 8 ARE

BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED 3RD

PETITIONER AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.31.10.2025 IN

I.A.NO.01 OF 2025.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. PRL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT AMARAVATHI 4 OTHERS, REP.

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

3. JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANT HAPURAMU DISTRICT,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU DIVISION,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

5. TAHSILDAR, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

6. C PRASAD, S/O CHINNA PEDDANNA, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC:

AGRICULTURE, R/O PERAVALI VILLAGE, SINGANAMALA MANDAL,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased toto issue Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ

of Certiorari, quashing the impugned Order No. D.Dis.No. 3630/2015/D4,

dated 19/09/2017 passed by the 3rd Respondent-Joint Collector in respect of

lands of the Petitioners to an extent of Ac.12-75 Cents, Ac.13-70 Cents &

Ac.16-75 Cents respectively in Survey No.164-6B situated at Julakaluva

Village, Singanamala Mandal in Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh, as

3

the same is void, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to

the provisions of ROR Act and also in violation of Articles 14 & 300-A of the

Constitution of India and set aside the subsequent Memo RC No. 60/2017(B),

dated 07/10/2017 issued by the 5th Respondent-Tahsildar and consequently

direct the Respondents not to alter the entries and not to interfere with the

peaceful possession of the Petitioners over the said lands and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 4736 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

vacate the interim order granted on 23.10.2017 in WP.No.34878 of 2017 and

pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 43347 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

vacate the interim order dated 22.11.2017 passed in WPMP No. 43347 of

2017 in WP No.34878 of 2017

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

Pleased to bring the proposed party 4th petitioner as legal representative of

the deceased 2nd petitioner as 4th petitioner in WP. 34878 of 2017 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

Pleased to bring the proposed party 4th and 5th petitioners as Legal

representatives of the deceased 1st Petitioner as 5th and 6th Petitioners in

W.P.NO. 34878 OF 2017, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

4

pleased to bring the proposed Petitioner Nos. 7 & 8 as legal representatives of

deceased 3rd petitioner and as the Petitioners Nos. 7 & 8 in the above writ

petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. M R S SRINIVAS

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KARNAM RAMESH

2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

Date of Reserved : 20.12.2025

Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2026

Date of Upload : 02.01.2026

5

The Court made the following Order:

The Writ Petition was filed by the three petitioners. During the

pendency of the Writ Petition, all the three petitioners have passed away and

their legal representatives were brought on record as the Petitioners 4 to 8.

2. The petitioners claim ownership and possession over Ac.43.20

cents of land, in Sy.No.164-6 of Julakaluva Village, Singanamala Mandal,

Ananathapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. This land is said to have been

purchased from the grandfather of the 6

th

respondent, by way of registered

sale deeds, in the years 1939, 1943, 1944 and 1951, by the father of the

deceased petitioners 1 to 3. The case of the petitioners 1 to 3 is that, an

extent of Ac.46.60 cents had been purchased initially. However, the father of

the petitioners 1 to 3, during his lifetime, had sold away Ac.3.36 cents of land

in favour of third parties and Ac.43.20 cents remained with the family of the

petitioners. The names of the petitioners 1 to 3 are also said to have been

mutated in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors over these

lands. In the year 1972, a partition is said to have been effected between the

petitioners 1 to 3 and their father, on account of which, the names of the

petitioners 1 to 3 were entered in the revenue record as pattadars and

possessors over Ac.12.75 cents, Ac.13.70 cents and Ac.16.75 cents of lands,

respectively, in the names of the petitioners 1 to 3, in survey No.164-6(B). The

pattadar pass books and title deeds had been issued in the favour of the

petitioners, in the year 1988. The petitioners would additionally contend that

the father of the petitioners had obtained certain loans, in the year 1950, for

6

development of this land and that he had deposited the title deeds of these

lands with the Government in respect of Ac.46.60 cents.

3. The 6

th

respondent, made a representation under Section 6-A of

the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971[for

short “the Act, 1971”], on 30.07.2014, before the 5

th

respondent-Tahsildar, for

issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds to an extent of Ac.12.10

cents, in Sy.No.164-6 on the ground that there was a registered partition

between himself and other family members, executed on 29.01.2014, under

which this land had fallen to the share of the 6

th

respondent. This

representation was refused by the 5

th

respondent, by way an endorsement,

dated 23.08.2014, in file No.199/2014/B, on the ground that there was no

vacant land available in this survey number and all the land was already

shown in the names of different pattadars. Aggrieved by this endorsement, the

6

th

respondent approached the 4

th

respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The

said 4

th

respondent-RDO after verifying the records, had dismissed the appeal

of the 6

th

respondent by an Order, dated 07.03.2015, in file

No.D.Dis.No.D2/5629/2014, on the ground that the land in question was

private patta land and as there are complicated facts, it would be appropriate

that the case is decided by a competent Civil Court.

4. The 6

th

respondent aggrieved by these observations, filed a

revision before the 3

rd

respondent-Joint Collector. At that stage, the 2

nd

respondent-District Collector, though the revision was filed before the Joint

Collector, sought a report from the 4

th

respondent. The 4

th

respondent-RDO

7

then submitted a detailed report, dated 11.04.2017, vide Rc.No.5629/D2/2014,

wherein it was stated that the total extent of land, in Sy.No.164 was Ac.74.49

cents while the available land was only Ac.49.00 cents, in Sy.No.164-1 to 164-

5. The report also stated that an extent of Ac.46.60 cents of land was in the

possession of the father of the petitioners 1 to 3 from the year-1943 onwards.

The 3

rd

respondent-Joint Collector, on the basis of the said report of the RDO

had passed an Order, dated 19.09.2017, setting aside the Orders of the RDO,

dated 07.03.2015, with a further direction to the Tahsildar, Singanamala to

verify the deeds of sale and to carry out necessary changes in the web land

records after considering the claim of the 6

th

respondent for issue of title

deeds and pattadar pass books, in Sy.No.164-6.

5. The Order of the Joint Collector, dated 19.09.2017, is challenged

before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

6. Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would contend that no claim had been raised against the lands, in the

possession of the petitioners till 2014. That, the 6

th

respondent, after a lapse

of 71 years, moved an application for issuance of pattadar pass books and

title deeds. He would contend that the revenue authority, cannot take up such

applications after a period of 71 years as the same stands barred by latches

and limitation. He would further contend that the RDO, had held that the

claims of the 6

th

respondent raises complicated questions of fact and the

same would be required to be settled by way of a decision of an appropriate

Civil Court. In such circumstances, the Joint Collector could not have

8

intervened in the matter and exercised the powers of a Civil Court to decide

title over the land. He would also point out that it is only the Civil Court which

would be competent to adjudicate such claims and the 3

rd

respondent could

not have by passed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court on the basis of a report

given by the RDO. He specifically relies upon Section-8(2) of the Andhra

Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 [for short “the

ROR Act”].

7. Sri Karnam Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the 6

th

respondent would contend that the order of the Joint Collector shows that the

petitioners 1 to 3 were claiming possession of land, over which they had no

title, and that the 6

th

respondent who is actual in possession of this land was

only seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records. He would also

contend that in such circumstances the decision of the joint collector cannot

be treated to be a decision deciding title or that he had stepped into the shoes

of the Civil Court for deciding title. He would also contend that the application

of the 6

th

respondent was not hit by latches inasmuch as the partition had

been executed between the family members of the 6

th

respondent only in

January-2014, while the application was moved in July-2014.

8. The 3

rd

respondent-Joint Collector, who had passed the

impugned order, filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, it is stated

that an extent of Ac.39.75 cents of land had been purchased by the father of

the petitioners 1 to 3, in the years 1943,1949 and 1951. While, the pattadar

pass books and title deeds had been issued in their favour for an extent of

9

Ac.43.20 cents. The contention of the 3

rd

respondent is that the claim of the

petitioner 1 to 3 would have to be restricted to Ac.39.75 cents, as per the

registered documents and the remaining land would have to be treated as a

land which is retained by the family of the 6

th

respondent.

9. The undisputed facts which come out, from the rival pleadings, is

that an extent of Ac.46.60 cents had initially been claimed by the father of the

petitioners 1 to 3. Thereafter, the petitioners 1 to 3 were given pattadar pass

books and title deeds in relation to Ac.43.20 cents. Their names were also

entered in the revenue record as owners and possessors of the aforesaid

extent of land. The petitioners contend that the revenue records, from 1943

onwards, shows the names of the father of the petitioners 1 to 3 as owner and

possessor of Ac.46.60 cents initially and subsequently, the names of the

petitioners 1 to 3, were being shown as owners and possessors, in the

revenue records, from 1988 onwards. Though, Sri Karnam Ramesh, learned

counsel for the 6

th

respondent sought to deny this aspect, the fact remains

that no such denial has been made by the 6

th

respondent. The counter

affidavit of the 3

rd

respondent admits of such entries in favour of the

petitioners 1 to 3.

10. The application of the 6

th

respondent, that he is entitled to

pattadar pass books and title deeds and mutation of his name in the revenue

record, came to be filed in the year-2014. There is no pleading that any claim

of this nature was made prior to 2014. Thus, a claim has been raised before

the revenue authorities, for mutation of revenue entries, after 71 years, if the

10

year-1943 is taken into account or at the very least 26 years, even if the year-

1988 is taken as a starting point. The erstwhile High Court of Judicature of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, had gone into the question whether such

claims should be taken up by the revenue authorities and whether the revenue

authorities are empowered to take up such claims after a long period of time.

A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad, in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs. Chilla

Ramarao & Ors

1

had held in the paragraph Nos.13, 14 & 16 as follows:-

“13. It is well settled that even where no limitation is prescribed

to exercise the revisional power, the Courts have held that such

revisional power should be exercised within a reasonable time. In

K.Venkat Reddy v. Director of Settlements, 1975 (1) APLJ 111, a

Division Bench of this Court has considered the contention that the

revisional power conferred on the Director of Settlements can be

exercised only within a reasonable time and that the said power

exercised after a long lapse of 7 years from the date of ground

pattas to the appellants therein cannot be said to have been

exercised within a reasonable period and held:

"The only limitations to which the power is subject are that

the revisional authority should not trench upon the powers

which are expressly reserved by the Act, or the rules to

other authorities and should not ignore, the limitations

inherent in the exercise of those powers.

14. In A.Konda Rao v. Government of A.P. represented by the

District Collector, Srikakulam, 1981 (II) APLJ 158 = 1981 (2) ALT

280 (DB), the appellants therein were granted pattas under the

provisions of the Act in the years 1959 and 1960 by the Settlement

Officer after an enquiry under the provisions of the Act and the

grant of pattas stood unchallenged for number of years. When the

orders of the Settlement Officer granting pattas to theappellants

therein under the Act which became final and remained

unchallenged for number of years, were sought to be disturbed in

exercise of the suo motu revisional powers conferred on the

Director of Settlements under Section 5(2) of the Act, the Division

Bench, dealing with the question whether the Director of

Settlements was justified in exercising the suo motu revisional

power conferred under Section 5(2) of the Act, held-

"There can be no doubt that where no period of limitation

is prescribed by the Act or the Rules made thereunder for

the exercise of the suo motu power of revision, the

1

2002 (6) ALD 299 (DB)

11

exercise of the power cannot be impugned on the ground

that it is barred by limitation. No period of limitation can

be imposed otherwise than by statute or the rules made

thereunder But, nonetheless, merely because power is

vested in an authority to revise the orders of the

subordinate authorities suo motu, as observed by our

learned Brother Jeevan Reddy, J., in the order under

appeal, "the power has to be exercised within a

reasonable time." In our view in cases where no period of

limitation is prescribed under the statute or the rules

made thereunder for exercise of revisional powers suo

motu, the question for consideration is not whether the

exercise of the power is barred by limitation for in the

absence of a period of limitation prescribed under the Act,

the question of bar of limitation cannot arise - it is a

question of the reasonable period of limitation within

which that power should be exercised where the question

is one exercising that power within a reasonable time and

what is reasonable period would undoubtedly be

dependant upon the facts and circumstances of each

case."

16. Another Division Bench of this Court in S.P. Dharma Reddy v.

Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, WA No.1521 of 1988,

held that exercise of revisional power by the Director of

Settlements under section 5(2) of the Act after a lapse of 27 years

from the date of grant of patta is unreasonable and oppressive.

Recently, another Division Bench of this Court in P-Mangamma v.

Women's Co-op. Housing Society Limited, 1995 (3) ALD 594 (DB),

speaking through one of us (S.R. Nayak, J), held that the action of

the District Collector in invoking the suo motu revisional power

under Section 166-B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land

Revenue Act, 1317-F, after a lapse of 31 years from the date of

assignment of the land is unreasonable and violative of the

doctrine of fair-play in action.

11. In another Judgment, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High

Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of M.B.

Ratnam & Ors Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District & Ors

2

,

on the question of delay and latches, in the revenue proceedings had held in

the paragraph Nos.51 & 52 of the Judgment as follows:-

“51. The entries in the record of rights are made after holding

public enquiries. The entries made in the record of rights carry with

them a great evidentiary value, sometimes they constitute the only

evidence available in order to establish one's title to the lands. The

record of rights is thus prepared, maintained and updated by public

servants in discharge of their official duties. It would be impossible

2

2003 SCC online AP 86: (2003) 1 ALD 826 : (2003) 1 ALT 688

12

to accept that the entries made in the record of rights in the instant

case which remained in the record for a period of over 10 years

have not been noticed by the respondents until they have

preferred the appeals before the appellate authority. The vague

explanation offered by the respondents about the entries and the

orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, is totally

unacceptable.

52. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion

that the so-called appeals preferred by the respondents herein

ought not to have been entertained by the appellate authority after

long lapse of more than 10 years virtually unsettling the settled

rights of the parties. The rights accrued in favour of the petitioners

cannot be set aside resulting in miscarriage of justice.

12. A similar issue of suo-moto exercise of revisional power under the

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317, after a long

lapse of time, on the ground of fraud or irregularity came to be considered by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Joint Collector Ranga

Reddy District & Anr Vs. D. Narsing Rao & Ors

3

, after noticing various

Judgments on this issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had held as

follows, in the paragraph Nos.16 & 17 of the Judgment:-

“16. No time-limit is prescribed in the above section for the

exercise of suo motu power but the question is as to whether the

suo motu power could be exercised after a period of 50 years. The

Government as early as in the year 1991 passed an order

reserving 477 acres of land in Survey Nos. 36 and 37 of

Gopanpally Village for house sites to the government employees.

In other words, the Government had every occasion to verify the

revenue entries pertaining to the said lands while passing the

Government Order dated 24-9-1991 but no exception was taken to

the entries found. Further the respondents herein filed Writ Petition

No. 21719 of 1997 challenging the Government Order dated 24-9-

1991 and even at that point of time no action was initiated

pertaining to the entries in the said survey numbers. Thereafter,

the purchasers of land from Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a

civil suit in OS No. 12 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for a declaration that they

were lawful owners and possessors of certain plots of land in

Survey No. 36, and after contest, the suit was decreed and said

decree is allowed to become final. By the impugned notice dated

31-12-2004 the suo motu revision power under Section 166-B

referred to above is sought to be exercised after five decades and

if it is allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous position leading

3

(2015) 3 SCC 695

13

to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of

the parties over immovable properties.

17. In the light of what is stated above we are of the view that the

Division Bench [Collector v. D. Narasing Rao, 2010 SCC OnLine

AP 406 : (2010) 6 ALD 748] of the High Court was right in affirming

the view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the suo

motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the

absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to

the concept of rule of law.”

13. Applying the aforesaid principles, it must be held that the revenue

authorities could not have entertained any application, after a lapse of 71

years if 1943 is taken into account or more than 26 years if the year-1988 is

taken into account.

14. Apart from this, another facet is the observation of the RDO, while

dismissing the appeal filed by the 6

th

respondent. The RDO, after considering

the rival claims of both the petitioners as well as the 6

th

respondent had held

that certain complicated questions of fact were raised and the appropriate

forum would be the Civil Court. Apart from this, Section 8(2) of the ROR Act,

1971, stipulates:-

“Section-8:-Bar of Suits:-

(1)……

(2) If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in

possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may

institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his

title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in

the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such

declaration.”

15. This provision requires a suit to be filed where entries denying the

title of a person have already been made. The 6

th

respondent having

deliberately chosen to approach the revenue authorities, under the provisions

of the Act, 1971, instead of attempting to demonstrate his title and possession

over the land, cannot now seek relief under the provisions of the Act, 1971.

14

16. For these reasons, it must be held that the impugned Order,

dated 19.09.2017, vide D.Dis.No.3630/2015/D4, passed by the 3

rd

respondent-Joint Collector, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

17. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside

the impugned Order, dated 19.09.2017, vide D.Dis.No.3630/2015/D4, passed

by the 3

rd

respondent-Joint Collector. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_______________________

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

Date: 02.01.2026

BSM

15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.34879 of 2017

02-01-2026

BSM