As per case facts, the petitioners contested orders from revenue authorities that cancelled their Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds for land, arguing the appeal was improperly entertained and authorities ...
Date of reserved for orders : 30.06.2026
Date of pronouncement : 07.08.2026
Date of uploading : 07.08.2026
APHC010095732018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
FRIDAY, THE 7
th
DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 4372/2018
Between:
1. B.NANDA KISHORE REDDY, S/O. LATE CHANDRA SHEKAR
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VASANTHAPURAM VILLAGE H/O. CHIGICHERLA
VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU
DISTRICT.
2. HARI PRAKASH REDDY, S/O. LATE CHANDRA SHEKAR
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VASANTHAPURAM VILLAGE H/O. CHIGICHERLA
VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAMU,
ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.
2
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM,
ANANTHAPURAM U DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL,
ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.
5. SMT M PARVATHAMMA, W/O. KULLAYYAPPA, AGED
ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. GARUDAMPALLY VILLAGE,
DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.
6. M CHANDRAYUDU, S/O. CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. GARUDAMPALLY
VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU
DISTRICT.
...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 a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or direction calling for the records relating to order of
the 2nd respondent passed in D.Dis.No.5679/2017/D4, dt.25.1.2018
in confirming the order of the 3rd responden t passed in
RC.No.5284/2015/G, dt.24.7.2017 and quash the same and pass
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 dispense with filing of certified
copy of the order of the 2nd respondent passed in
D.Dis.No.5679/20I7/D4, dt.25.1.2018 and pass
IA NO: 2 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 suspend the order of the 2nd
respondent passed in D.Dis.No.5679/20I7/D4, dt.25.1.2018 in
confirming the order of the 3rd respondent passed in
3
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
RC.No.5284/2015/G, dt.24.7.2017, pending disposal of the WP and
pass
IA NO: 3 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 Orders
dt.02.05.2018 granted in W.P.No.4372 of 2018 and dismiss the
above Writ Petition with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice,
and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S SRAVANA SANDHYA
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following:
4
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“…. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or direction calling for the records
relating to order of the 2
nd
respondent passed in
D.Dis.No.5679/2017/D4 dt.25.1.2018 in confirming
the order of the 3
rd
respondent passed in
RC.No.5284/2015/G dt.24.7.2017 and quash the
same and pass.….”
2) The case of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.5 and 6
herein filed an appeal under Section 5 of the A.P Rights in land and
pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) before respondent
No.3 herein – Revenue Divisional Officer questioning the action of
respondent No.4 - Tahsildar in issuing pattedar passbooks and title
deeds in respect of the land in Sy.No.521-2, admeasuring an extent
Ac.16.60 cents situated at Chigicherla Village, Dharmavaram
Mandal, Anantapuramu District to the petitioners. Respondent No.5
and 6 contended before the Revenue Divisional Officer that originally
the schedule land belong to one Medara Chinna Lingappagari
Chandrayayudu, who is their grandfather. Their further case is that
he had three sons namely (1) M.Chennappa, (2) M.Y. Pothannna,
who is the father of respondent No.5 and (3) M.Chandraiah, who is
the father of respondent No.6 and during his life time, the
grandfather was in possession of the property and after his demise,
the property devolved on his three sons and after their demise, the
property devolved on respondent Nos.5 and 6 and thus they have
5
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
joint right, title and possession of the property. Taking advantage of
their innocence and illiteracy, the petitioners and their mother got
pattedar passbooks and title deeds in their favour and also managed
the revenue authorities to get their names mutated in the revenue
records and as such sought for setting aside the issuance of
pattedar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners and
their mother.
3) On receiving the said appeal filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6,
respondent No.3 herein has forwarded the same to the Tahsildar to
submit his remarks on the facts mentioned in the appeal petition. On
receipt of the notice, the Tahsildar directed the Mandal Revenue
Inspector to conduct an inspection and submit a report, accordingly,
he has submitted his report stating that the land in Sy.No.521,
admeasuring an extent of Ac. 16.60 cents was shown in the name of
one Medara Chinna Lingappagari Chandrayayudu as per RSR and
the records further revealed that the lands have been declared by
the father of the petitioners in the land ceiling declaration in the year
1976 stating that he is the owner of the property and the land in
Sy.No.521 was computed in the holding of the declarant. It is further
stated that the father of the petitioners was found to be holding
excess land and the same was also surrendered and after his
demise, the property was partitioned among the petitioners and their
mother and the pattedar passbooks and title deeds were also
issued. It is further stated in the report that the father of the
petitioners along with the petitioners herein mortgaged the property
in the year 1991 and obtained the loan. Having stated so, the
Tahsildar observed that the pattedar passbooks and title deeds have
been issued irregularly and on misrepresentation of facts and on the
6
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
ground that the petitioners have failed to prove their right over the
land as to whether the land was purchased or not.
4) Thereafter, a second report was submitted by the Tahsildar on
15.12.2016 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein he has again
noted the contents which have been stated earlier and further
observed that the grandfather of respondent Nos.5 and 6 has
executed a mortgage deed in the year 1937 and there is no recorded
evidence as to whether the mortgage was released and it is further
observed that the father of the petitioners has declared the land as
his own land and during enquiry in the village it has come to light
that their family is in possession of the land for more than 50 years.
5) Further, the petitioners also filed their counters stating that
they are the absolute owners of the property and are exercising the
right of ownership over the property and said land was also shown in
the land ceiling declaration and this extent of land was also
mentioned in the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal. It was
also stated that they are in possession of the property and even in
the year 1991, the land was mortgaged in favour of the bank and
loan was obtained and that a dispute is pending before the Civil
Court bearing suit O.S.No.11 of 2017 and O.S.No.13 of 2017 and
sought for dismissal of the petition filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6
6) Considering the petition filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and
counters filed by the petitioners, the Revenue Divisional Officer
passed an order in RC.No.5284/15/G, dated 24.07.2017, wherein he
has referred to the entire report of the Tahsildar and also averments
made in the counter and the contention that the land was mortgaged
by various persons at different times and as per the RSR, the
7
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
petitioners have no record to prove their right over the property and
curiously came to the conclusion that having knowledge of multiple
transactions, father of the petitioners has filed declarations that he
has land. Respondent No.3 further came to the conclusion that the
petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence to show that
they have purchased the property and passed an order for
cancellation of the pattedar passbooks and title deeds on the ground
that there is no recorded evidence to show that the petitioners have
title over the property.
7) Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3, petitioners
preferred Revision before respondent No.2-Joint Collector. During
pendency of the revision, their mother who was a party to the same,
died and to that extent they have also filed a memo. It was
contended before the Joint Collector that except the entry in diglot,
there is no other material before respondent No.3 to show that the
respondent Nos.5 and 6 were ever in possession of the property and
as there is a dispute with regard to title, the same has to be
adjudicated by the Civil Court. It was further pleaded that the appeal
is filed without an application to condone the delay and the Revenue
Divisional Officer has no power to entertain the appeal.
8) The Joint Collector after extracting grounds of revision came
to the conclusion that in the resettlement register, the name of the
grandfather of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 is mentioned and the
land was declared by the father of the petitioners in the Land Ceiling
Declaration and thereafter there was a partition between the
petitioners in the year 2015 and came to the conclusion that the
petitioners have not produced any evidence to prove their title over
8
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
the property and the pattedar passbooks and title deeds are
obtained without valid title over the land in question.
9) It is the further case of the petitioners that as per Section 5 (5)
of the Act against every order of the recording authority either
making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make
such an amendment an appeal shall lie to the revenue divisional
officer or such other authority as may be prescribed. As per the
above provision, only against the order of the recording authority
either making or amending the record of rights, an appeal lies and
no appeal is maintainable against the issuance of pattedar
passbooks and title deeds. In the present case, the appeal was filed
before the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of the pattedar
passbooks. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Revenue
Divisional Officer itself is not maintainable.
10) Petitioners contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 passed
the impugned order for cancellation of the pattedar passbooks and
title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the
name of the grandfather of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is shown in the
RSR. The report of the Tahsildar shows that there were transactions
in respect of the said property and also the father of the petitioners
and his brothers have declared the land in their holding in the
declarations filed in the year 1981 before the Land Reforms Tribunal
under the provisions of the A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings)Act. 1971 and also mortgaged the property in
favour of the bank in the year 1991 and the revenue records also
show the name of the father of the petitioners and after his demise
the name of the petitioners.
9
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
11) Further, in the appeal filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6, except
stating that the petitioners and their mother obtained pattedar
passbooks and title deeds by managing the revenue authorities,
there is no whisper with regard to their possession and incorporation
of their names in Form 1B. The entries in the revenue records were
not questioned and in fact the revenue records show the name of
father of the petitioners and after his demise, the names of the
petitioners are mutated in the revenue records as pattedars of the
property.
12) Even in the appeal filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 the details
of the pattedar passbooks were not mentioned and in spite of the
same, respondent No.3 entertained the appeal. Section 5(5) of the
Act provides that an appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days
from the date of the order. In the absence of any particulars with
regard to the dates and without an application to condone the delay,
respondent No.3 has no power to entertain the appeal. Therefore,
the impugned order of respondent No.2 confirming the order of
respondent No.3 is not legal and valid.
13) When the matter came up for admission on 12.02.2018, this
Court passed the following interim order:
“Notice before admission.
At request of Mr.K.Srinivas, post after two weeks.
In the meantime, the respondents are directed to maintain
the entries in Record of Rights relating to Survey No.521-2 of an
extent of Acs.16-60 cents as maintained on 24.01.2018.”
10
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
14) Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the land in
S.No.521 extent 16.60 acres of Chigicherla Village of Dharmavaram
Mandal is patta land as per Re-Settlement Register and stands
registered in the name of Sri Medara Chinna Lingappagari
Chandrayudu who died leaving behind his three sons namely M.
Chennappa, M. Yerra Pothanna and Sri M. Chandraiah. After the
death of Sri Medara Chinna Lingappagari Chandrayudu his three
sons got right over the land in question. Respondent Nos.5 and 6
i.e., Smt. M. Parvathamma W/o Kullayappa and Sri M. Chandrayudu
S/o late M.Chandraiah are granddaughter and grandson of Medara
Chinna Lingappagari Chandrayudu i.e., Diglot pattadar.
15) It is further contended that while the matter stood thus, father
of the petitioners B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy has shown the land in
S.No.521-2 extent 4.49 acres in his land ceiling declaration in CC
No.2223/DMV along with other lands. Similarly Sri B. Ranga Reddy
S/o Chinna Obi Reddy has shown the land in S.No.521-2 extent 4.49
acres in his land ceiling declaration in CC No.2219/DMV along with
other lands. But they have not produced any evidence to prove their
title over the lands in question shown in their declarations.
Declarations cannot give any right and title over the land.
16) The writ petitioners have obtained pattadar pass books and
title deeds as shown below for the entire land in S.No.521-2 of
Chigicherla Village of Dharmavaram Mandal.
Sl.
No.
Name of the PPB Holder S.No Extent PPB/TD No. 1B Khata
No.
1 Smt. B. Prameelamma
W/o late Chandra Sekhar
Reddy
521-2 5.53 154873 991
11
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
2 Sri B. Nanda Kishore Reddy,
S/o late Chandra Sekhar
Reddy
521-2 5.53 164955 914
3 Sri B. Hari Prakash Reddy
S/o late Chandra Sekhar
Reddy
521-2 5.53 516784 1454
Total 16.59
17) It is further contended that the basis for showing the land in
land ceiling declarations and for getting the above pattadar pass
books and title deeds is that their grandfather i.e., late B. Obi Reddy
S/o Ramachandrappa had the lands in S.No.528 extent 16.64 acres
and S.No.530 extent 36.87 acres of Chigicherla village of
Dharmavaram Mandal and that land was taken by the Government
under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
Holdings) Act, 1973 for issue of "D" Form pattas. In lieu of taking the
said land the Government has allotted the land in S.No.521-2 extent
16.60 acres of Chigicherla village of Dharmavaram Mandal to them.
Hence they have obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds for
the land in question as shown above. The Pattadar Pass Books and
Title Deeds cannot be issued only based on the possession. In the
instant case the writ petitioners have failed to prove their title over
the land in question either before this authority or before the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram. The writ petitioners have
obtained Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds without valid title flow
over the land in question.
18) It is further contended in the counter affidavit that the writ
petitioners are repeatedly stating that they are having right, title and
12
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
possession over the land in question and to that effect the land in
question has been in the land ceiling declarations. But they have not
produced any evidence such as registered sale deeds etc., showing
their right over the land. The Diglot pattadar belongs to Kuruba
Caste and the writ petitioners belong to OC community. Hence they
cannot get claim right and title as legal heirs. The possession alone
cannot give right and title over the land in question. The Pattadar
Pass Books and Title Deeds cannot be issued only based on the
possession. Likewise the writ petitioners have failed to prove their
right and title over the land in question.
19) It is further contended that the revision petition filed by Sri B.
Nanda Kishore Reddy and Sri B. Hari Prakash Reddy sons of late
Chandra Sekhar Reddy of Vasanthapuramu H/o Chigicherla Village
of Dharmavaram Mandal before the Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu
against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram
passed in Rc.No.5284/2015/G dated:24.07.2017 has been admitted
under the provisions of Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar
Pass Books Act, 1979 and disposed off duly giving sufficient
opportunity to the revision petitioners i.e., writ petitioners to produce
recorded evidence showing their right and title over the land in
question either for showing the land in question in the Land Ceiling
Declarations or for getting Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in
their favour, but, however, they failed to produce valid documents
such as registered sale deeds etc.
20) It is further contended that the orders of Revenue Divisional
Officer, Dharmavaram passed in Rc.No.5284/2015/G
dated:24.07.2017 have been confirmed in D.Dis.No.5679/2017/D4
13
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
dated:25.01.2018 duly verifying all the connected records since the
revision petitioners i.e., writ petitioners have not produced any valid
document to prove their title over the land in question and they have
obtained Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds without valid title flow
over the land in question, as such requested to dismiss the writ
petition.
21) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed counter contending that after
resuming the writ petitioners grandfather’s land by the Government,
the writ petitioners had entered into the land in Sy.No.521-2 extent
Ac.16.60 cents which belongs to their family without any sale deed
from the rightful owners. The land in Sy.No.521-2 extent Ac.16.60
cents out of which an extent of Ac.8.98 cents was included in the
land ceiling declarations and the remaining land shown as writ
petitioners ancestral property and recorded in revenue records and
obtained pattadar passbooks by misrepresenting the facts. Knowing
the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed appeal under section 5(5) of
the A.P.Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books act 1971 before
the Revenue divisional officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District.
After filing appeal, reasonable opportunities were granted to both
parties to prove their title and instructed to submit relevant records,
and directed the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram to submit a detailed
report.
22) Accordingly, the Tahsildar directed the Mandal Revenue
Inspector to conduct enquiry and submit report. Basing on the
reports of the Tahsildar and Mandal Revenue Inspector, the appeal
was allowed by directing the Tahsildar to delete the entries made in
revenue records in respect of Sy.No.521-2 extent of Ac.16.60 cents
14
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
of Chigicherla village on 24.07.2017 vide R.C.No.5284/15/G, which
was confirmed by respondent No.2 in a revision preferred by the
petitioners under Section 9 of the Act.
23) Further, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed additional counter,
reiterating the contentions urged in their counter, contended that
pursuant to the orders passed by respondent No.3, names of
respondent Nos.5 and 6 were mutated in the revenue records by
respondent No.4 in respect of their lands an extent Ac.8.30 cents
each which is evident from the proceedings dated. 22.09.2017 and
pattedar passbook and 1B namuna dated 27.09.2017 were issued
and also stated that the writ petitioners without filing an appeal
against their mutation proceedings, have filed the above writ petition
before this Court challenging the orders of respondent No.3
dt.24.07.2017 which were confirmed by respondent No.2 dated
25.01.2018 alleging that the appeal filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6
before respondent No.3 - revenue divisional officer is not
maintainable. But, the writ petitioners have not taken the plea about
the maintainability of the appeal before respondent No.3 at any point
of time and that having exhausted the statutory revision under
Section 9 before respondent No.2, it is not open for the petitioners to
raise the ground on the maintainability of the appeal before
respondent No.3. Further, as stated above, after the death of Sri
Chandraiah, the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were mutated in
the revenue records in respect of the subject land each Ac.8.30
cents and respondent No.4 has issued pattedar passbooks in their
names. However, the writ petitioners without challenging the said
mutation proceedings, have filed the above writ petition challenging
the previous proceedings of respondent No3 dated 24.07.2017,
15
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
which were confirmed by respondent No.2 dated 25.01.2018 though
a statutory appeal lie against the mutation proceedings dated
22.09.2017.
24) It is further contended that subsequently, respondent No.5 had
executed gift deed dated 25.09.2017 in favour of M.Kishore, who is
her grandson for an extent of Ac.5.30 cents out of total extent of
Ac.8.30 cents and also executed another gift deed in favour of her
son namely M.Chandra Shekar an extent of Ac.3.00 cents under gift
deed dated 12.12.2018. It is also contended that respondent Nos.5
and 6 already executed gift deed in favour of third parties, as such
the title in respect of the subject property has been transferred to 3
rd
parties, much prior to filing of the writ petition.
25) It is further contended that the writ petitioners have filed
separate suits i.e. O.S.No.11 of 2017 and O.S.No.13 of 2017 on the
file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Dharmavaram for grant of
permanent injunction against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of
land an extent of Ac.5.53 cents each in Sy.No.521 and pending suit
they have also filed I.A.No.33 of 2017 in O.S.No.11 of 2017 and
I.A.No.35 of 2017 in O.S.No.13 of 2017 for grant of temporary
injunction, which were allowed vide orders dated 11.07.2019.
Against the said orders passed in I.A.No.33 of 2017 in O.S.No.11 of
2017 and in I.A.No.35 of 2017 in O.S.No.13 of 2017, respondent
Nos.5 and 6 preferred C.M.A.Nos.2 of 2019 and 3 of 2019 before the
Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram and the same were allowed vide
its orders dated 31.03.2023 by setting aside the orders passed in
I.A.No.33 of 2017 in O.S.No.11 of 2017 and in I.A.No.35 of 2017 in
O.S.No.13 of 2017. Against the said orders, the writ petitioners filed
16
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
C.R.P.No.1362 of 2023 and C.R.P.No.1367 of 2023 before this
Court and the said revision petitions are pending. Therefore,
petitioners have no title and possession over the subject land and
without having any title over the subject land, the petitioners cannot
seek for mutation of their names in the revenue records, and
requested to dismiss the writ petition.
26) Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners contended that the impugned orders passed by
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are wholly without jurisdiction and contrary
to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books
Act, 1971 as the appeal filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 is
maintainable. Further, in the absence of application to condone the
delay, respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
27) Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the
petitioners and their predecessors have been in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property for several decades. The land was
included in the land ceiling declarations of the petitioners' father, and
the same was considered by the Land Reforms Tribunal and was
also mortgaged to a bank in the year 1991. After the death of their
father, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue
records. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 exceeded their statutory
jurisdiction by adjudicating disputed questions of title. The Revenue
Authorities are empowered only to maintain and correct revenue
entries and cannot decide complicated questions relating to
ownership. Since civil suits regarding the subject property are
already pending between the parties, the authorities ought to have
relegated the parties to the competent Civil Court instead of
17
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
recording findings that the petitioners have no title over the property,
and requested to set aside the impugned proceedings.
28) Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2
supported the impugned orders and contended that the
name of the grandfather of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was shown as
the pattadar of the subject land in Re-Settlement Register (RSR).
The petitioners failed to produce documentary evidence to prove
their title. Mere inclusion of the land in the land ceiling declarations
or long possession cannot confer title. Further, adequate opportunity
was afforded to the petitioners before both the Revenue Divisional
Officer and the Joint Collector to establish their title. However,
despite such opportunity, they failed to produce any documentary
evidence such as sale deeds or other title document s.
Consequently, the authorities rightly concluded that the Pattadar
Pass Books and Title Deeds had been obtained without lawful title,
therefore, based upon the available revenue records and material
collected during enquiry respondent No.3 passed the order in the
appeal, which was confirmed by respondent No.2 in a revision
preferred by the petitioners, as such they do not warrant any
interference by this Court, and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
29) Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
Ms.S.Sravana Sandhya, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.5 and 6 contended that the subject property originally belonged
to their grandfather and, after his demise, devolved upon his legal
heirs. The petitioners, without any valid title deed, got mutated their
names in the revenue records and obtained pattadar passbooks. It is
further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, after
18
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
conducting a detailed enquiry and considering the reports submitted
by the Tahsildar and Mandal Revenue Inspector, rightly directed
deletion of the petitioners' names from the revenue records, which
was confirmed in the revision filed by the petitioners.
30) The learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 would further
submit that, pursuant to the orders of the Revenue Authorities, the
names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were mutated in the revenue
records, Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued in their
favour and thereafter portions of the property were transferred
through registered gift deeds. The petitioners did not challenge the
subsequent mutation proceedings though a statutory remedy was
available, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed.
31) In “Penumarthy Veera Panasa Ramana Vs. Penumarthy
Sambamoorthy and others
1
”, relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, this Court while dealing with the entries in the
revenue records, held as follows:
“.....the entries in the revenue records, though they may be
relevant evidence under Sec.35 of the Evidence Act, are not
evidence of title”
32) In “Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Ors.
2
”, relied on by the
learned counsel for the respondents, this Court held as follows:
“From a bare reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it can be held that
against every order of recording authority either making an amendment in
1
AIR 1961 AP 361 (DB)
2
2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB)
19
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal to
the RDO, is provided within the time stipulated in the Section. Under the
Act, making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make
amendment in record of rights is a crucial stage and a substantive decision
rendered by the recording authority. Therefore, right of appeal is provided
against such decisions.”
33) In “Mamidi Srinivas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
3
” relied on
by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court held as
follows:
“It is settled position of law that the mutation of a property in the
revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish
title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in
whose favour the mutation has been ordered, to pay the land revenue”
34) In “Roshina T Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others
4
” relied on
by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
“It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the
appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights
between the private persons. The remedy Under Article 226 of the
Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory
duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court
has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It
is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be
used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil
or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to
replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available
to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the
3
2025 (6) ALD 834 (AP) (DB)
4
(2019) 2 SCC 329
20
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised
casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant.”
35) In “D.L.F.Housing Construction (P) Limited Vs. Delhi
Municipal Corporation and others
5
” relied on by the learned
counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
“In our opinion, in a case where the basic facts are disputed, and
complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the
writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief.”
36) The law laid down in the said judgments is not in dispute. AS
per the law laid down in the said judgments, the entries in the
revenue records may be relevant evidence under Section 35 of the
Evidence Act, but they are not evidence of title. Further, regular suit
is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to
property rights between the private persons. Where the basic facts
are disputed, and complicated questions of law and fact depending
on evidence are involved the writ court is not the proper forum for
seeking relief. Further, the remedy Under Article 226 of the
Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some
statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged.
37) On a careful consideration of the material available on record,
it is evident that respondent Nos.5 and 6 preferred an appeal under
Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,
1971 before respondent No.3 questioning the action of respondent
No.4 in issuing Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in respect of
the subject land in Sy.No.521-2, admeasuring Ac.16.60 cents
5
(1976) 3 SCC 160
21
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
situated at Chigicherla Village, Dharmavaram Mandal,
Anantapuramu District. After affording due opportunity to both
parties and upon consideration of the reports submitted by the
Tahsildar, respondent No.3 allowed the appeal vide proceedings in
Rc.No.5284/2015/G dated 24.07.2017, directing cancellation of the
Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of the petitioners. Consequent
thereto, the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were mutated in the
revenue records. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a
revision under Section 9 of the Act before respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2, after examining the entire material on record,
including the reports of the Tahsildar and the findings recorded by
respondent No.3, dismissed the revision vide
D.Dis.No.5679/2017/D4 dated 25.01.2018 and confirmed the order
of respondent No.3.
38) From the above, it appears that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
played role of a Civil Court and have gone into the question of title.
Such a power to adjudicate the title in respect of the property has not
been conferred on respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. No power was
conferred on respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the provisions of the
A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 to decide the
title of the property and they are empowered only to go into the
entries in the revenue records. Instead of relegating the parties to
the Civil Court, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have gone beyond the
powers conferred on them and gave a finding that the petitioners
have no title to the property.
39) Further, it is also borne out from the record that the petitioners
instituted O.S.No.11 of 2017 and O.S.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the
learned Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, seeking permanent
22
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
injunction against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the subject
property. They also obtained temporary injunction orders in
I.A.No.33 of 2017 in O.S.No.11 of 2017 and I.A.No.35 of 2017 in
O.S.No.13 of 2017 vide orders dated 11.07.2019. However, the said
orders were challenged by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in C.M.A.
Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 before the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Dharmavaram, and those appeals were allowed vide orders dated
31.03.2023, and set aside the orders of temporary injunction.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred C.R.P.No.1362 of
2023 and C.R.P.No.1367 of 2023 before this Court, and the said
Civil Revision Petitions are stated to be pending consideration.
40) The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that there exists a
serious dispute relating to title over the subject property between the
petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6. The institution of civil suits
by the petitioners themselves in respect of the very same property is
a clear indication that the dispute is one relating to civil rights and
title. Such disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated by this
Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Roshina T Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others”
(referred supra) a regular civil suit is the appropriate remedy for
settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the
private persons. Therefore, the proper forum for adjudication of such
disputes is the competent Civil Court, where the parties can
establish their respective rights by leading oral and documentary
evidence. Admittedly, in the present case, petitioners filed O.S.No.11
of 2017 and O.S.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s
23
VS,J
WP_4372_2018
Court, Dharmavaram for grant of permanent injunction against
respondent Nos.5 and 6.
41) Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
rival claims of the parties, this Court is of the view that the entries in
the revenue records shall remain subject to the final outcome of the
civil suits O.S.No.11 of 2017 and O.S.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the
learned Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Dharmavaram filed by the
petitioners herein. The findings, if any, recorded by the revenue
authorities shall not prejudice the rights of either party before the
competent Civil Court. The trial Court shall decide the suits filed by
the petitioners herein uninfluenced by the observations made
hereinabove.
42) With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
43) Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
07.08.2026
Ksp
Whether the order is :
Speaking - Yes
Reportable - No
In a significant **Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment on land titles**, the court recently addressed the crucial scope of **revenue authorities' jurisdiction in property disputes**, emphasizing their limited role in adjudicating complex ownership issues. This vital ruling, available on CaseOn, provides essential clarity for land-related legal matters across the state.
The case, a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought to quash orders passed by the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) that cancelled the petitioners' Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. The petitioners, B. Nanda Kishore Reddy and Hari Prakash Reddy, had obtained these documents for land in Sy.No.521-2 of Chigicherla Village.
Respondents No.5 and 6, Smt. M. Parvathamma and M. Chandrayudu, challenged the issuance of these documents, claiming the land originally belonged to their grandfather. They alleged the petitioners obtained the passbooks irregularly and by misrepresentation, leading to an appeal before the RDO under Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971.
The RDO, based on reports from the Tahsildar, allowed the appeal and directed the cancellation of the petitioners' passbooks and title deeds. This decision was subsequently confirmed by the Joint Collector in a revision petition filed by the petitioners.
The central question before the High Court was whether the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector, acting as revenue authorities, had the power to adjudicate complex questions of property title, especially when civil suits concerning the same land were already pending. Additionally, the petitioners raised questions about the maintainability of the original appeal filed before the RDO due to the absence of an application to condone delay and the nature of the order being appealed.
The High Court relied on several foundational legal principles and precedents:
The Court cited several judgments, including:
CaseOn.in offers 2-minute audio briefs that can assist legal professionals in quickly grasping the core principles and rulings of such intricate cases, making it easier to analyze the application of these specific legal precedents in new scenarios.
The High Court carefully reviewed the actions of the RDO and Joint Collector. It observed that both authorities had delved into the question of title, reaching a conclusion that the petitioners lacked valid ownership over the property. The Court found that by doing so, the revenue authorities had overstepped their statutory jurisdiction.
Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioners themselves had instituted civil suits (O.S.No.11 of 2017 and O.S.No.13 of 2017) before the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Dharmavaram, seeking permanent injunctions regarding the same property. These pending civil cases, along with the subsequent appeals and revision petitions, clearly demonstrated a serious and intricate dispute over property title.
The High Court reiterated that revenue authorities are primarily concerned with maintaining and correcting revenue entries and are not empowered to decide complex questions of ownership. Such matters, involving detailed oral and documentary evidence, fall squarely within the domain of a competent Civil Court.
Given the existence of a serious title dispute and pending civil litigation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court concluded that the revenue authorities had acted beyond their powers. The Court, therefore, disposed of the Writ Petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. It directed that:
The Court further ordered that all pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.
This **Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment on land titles** serves as a vital reminder of the strict jurisdictional boundaries between revenue authorities and civil courts. For lawyers specializing in property law and land disputes, this ruling underscores the importance of directing clients with title disputes to the appropriate civil forum rather than relying solely on revenue mechanisms. It clarifies that revenue records are not definitive proof of ownership and that attempts by administrative bodies to adjudicate title will be deemed an overreach of their powers. This case is also crucial for students of administrative law and civil procedure, illustrating the practical application of jurisdictional principles and the role of writ courts in correcting statutory overreach.
All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice regarding their specific circumstances.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....