IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Title – Revenue Record is not a document of title and does not confer any ownership or title upon person whose name appears in it – Mutation does not create or extinguish title and has absolutely no presumptive value regarding title.
(2) Proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India are not the appropriate forum for resolving serious disputes concerning questions of fact and title to property – Investigating these claims is proper function of civil court in a regularly constituted suit, rather than of a court exercising prerogative to issue writs.

JUDGMENT

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. On 06.02.1950, a Gazette Notification under Section 7(1) of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1326 Fasli [Corresponds to 1916 AD.], was issued proposing to include land in an extent of 787 Acres in Survey No. 81 of Kalvalanagaram Village as a reserve forest. The Joint Collector, Khammam, vide Order dated 19.05.2003, rejected the Appellants’ claim to exclude the land in Survey No. 81, in an extent of 600 Acres, Kalvalanagaram Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District (“Subject Matter”), from the proposed declaration as forest land/reserve forest. The Appellants questioned the Order dated 19.05.2003 in Writ Petition No. 19107 of 2003 in the then High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad.

The Appellants prayed for the following reliefs:

2.1 To issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Case No. B2-6359/87 dated 19.05.2003 of the Joint Collector, Khammam, as illegal; and

2.2 Consider the claims and rights of the Appellants in respect of the land in Survey No. 81, in an extent of 600 Acres, Kalvalanagaram Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District, under Sections 10 and 11 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355F [Corresponds to 1945 AD.].

3. In a nutshell, the Appellants prayed for setting aside the Order dated 19.05.2003 under Sections 10 and 11 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355F, and accept the claims of Appellants for the Subject Matter of Appeal and exclude the Subject Matter in the proposed Notification as Forest Land/Reserve Forest. On 27.03.2012, Writ Petition No. 19107 of 2003 was allowed, and the order dated 19.05.2003 in Case Number B2-6359/87 of the Joint Collector, Khammam, was set aside, and it was declared that the proceedings relating to the reservation of the Subject Matter were ultra vires and non est in law. The State filed Writ Appeal No. 910 of 2012, and the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, through the impugned Judgment, allowed the Writ Appeal. Hence, the Civil Appeal at the instance of the Claimants.

4. The Subject Matter of the Civil Appeal was under the administration and control of the Nizam of Hyderabad. The Subject Matter is presently located and identified as Survey No. 81 in Kalvalanagaram Village, Karakagudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, State of Telangana. The Appellants state that in 1931-32 [Corresponds to 1341 Fasli.], the then H.E.H the Nizam of Hyderabad granted pattas in favour of either the Appellants or their predecessors-in-interest. It is further averred that on 06.02.1950, a proposal was initiated for notifying an extent of 787 Acres in Survey No. 81, which included the Subject Matter as forest land. The Appellants categorically plead that the steps were initiated under the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1326F. The enactment under which the Notification was issued is not specifically stated by the Appellants at the earliest point in time, and the Respondents state that the proceedings to which a reference is made by the Appellants were in fact under the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355F. The controversy regarding the legality or otherwise of the Notification dated 06.02.1950 would be examined, subject to our view on the Appellants’ claim that the Subject Matter is patta land. The Appellants refer to an order dated 08.10.1984, said to have been issued by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, directing a de novo inquiry and submission of a report by reconstructing the record. The copy of the said Order is not filed by the Appellants. Notwithstanding the same, we proceed to refer to the Report dated 07.01.1990 of the Mandal Revenue Officer (“MRO”), Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. The MRO, after accepting the admitted position that the primary records concerning the Subject Matter are unavailable, but still, on a few documents made available, recommends as follows:

“14. In view of the above facts, the Forest Block, Kalvalanagaram was not declared as Reserve Forest U/s. 15 of AP Forest Act, So far, but the process