1. Claimants contested status of government lands, alleging rights through historical jagir grants and subsequent inheritance or conveyance, despite contrary characterization as state-owned poramboke land. (Para 4 , 5 , 9 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1307
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. SUNDRESH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Bandari Ramchander & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Maitri Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10699 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 10701/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10685/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10700/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10682/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10683/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10684/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10686/2013 Civil Appeal No 10698/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10681/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10695/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10696/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10697/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10706/2013 Civil Appeal Nos. 10702-10704/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10705/2013 Civil Appeal No.10707/2013 Civil Appeal No. 10708/2013
Decided On : 29-10-2026
Important Points
Jagir grants confer rights to land revenue, not title. Upon statutory abolition, such interests vest in the State. Commutation payments extinguish further claims to the land, and revenue entries lacking valid mutation orders cannot override the State's title to government lands.
Subject
Civil Law - Land and Property Law
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH TELANGANA AREA ABOLITION OF JAGIRS REGULATION ACT: Reg.4, Reg.5, Reg.6, Reg.17, Reg.18, Reg.20, Reg.9, Reg.10, Reg.11, Reg.14, Reg.21
HYDERABAD TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT: S.47, S.48
HYDERABAD TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT: S.47, S.48
Headnote
(A) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli - Regulations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 20, and 21 - Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952 - Section 2 - Nature of Jagir grants - A grant of jagir is not to be misconstrued as one of title over the property; it is an assignment of the government share of the produce of land or a right in respect of land revenue (Paras 25 and 26) - Upon the commencement of the abolition regulations, all jagirs vest in the State, and the powers, rights, and liabilities of the jagirdar cease to be exercisable, shifting to the administrator (Paras 28, 29 and 30) - The entitlement of an erstwhile jagirdar is limited to the payment of a commutation sum as one-time compensation for the abolition of restrictive jagirdari rights (Paras 35 and 37).
(B) Revenue Records - Entries in pahanies - Revenue entries made without reference to the abolition regulations, lacking formal mutation orders or jurisdiction, are nullities and cannot confer title, especially where land is classified as government poramboke (Paras 48 and 49).
(C) Burden of Proof - Exception for home farms and personal property - The onus to prove that a property constitutes a home farm or personal property under Regulations 17 and 18 of the abolition regulations lies on the person asserting the same as a limited exception to the general vesting of jagirs in the State (Para 31).
Facts of the case:
Dispute over lands classified as government poramboke since 1912. Multiple parties claimed title through various sources, including jagir grants from a ruler, succession to a jagirdar who had received commutation sums after the abolition of jagirs in 1949, and revenue entries in pahanies. Some claimants relied on alleged wills and auction purchases, while others claimed the lands were personal properties or home farms. The Special Court and High Court had previously declared the lands as belonging to the State and designated some claimants as land grabbers.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revenue entries in favor of certain claimants were bogus and orchestrated through fraud in collusion with officials, as they lacked corresponding mutation orders. The receipt of commutation sums by the successors of a jagirdar disentitled them from claiming any further title or interest in the subject lands. The claims based on the ruler's firman were rejected as such grants did not transfer title and were extinguished by the abolition regulations. No evidence was led to prove the lands were personal properties or home farms.
Issues: Whether the subject lands vested in the State upon the abolition of jagirs; whether revenue entries alone can establish title over land classified as government poramboke; and whether the receipt of commutation sums extinguishes the jagirdar's claim to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: Jagir grants provide rights to revenue, not ownership. Statutory abolition transferred total administration and title to the State. Any subsequent revenue entries lacking legal basis are void. The acceptance of commutation payment as compensation for the loss of jagir rights serves as a legal acknowledgement that the interest in the land has ceased.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Revenue Records - Entries in pahanies - Revenue entries made without reference to the abolition regulations, lacking formal mutation orders or jurisdiction, are nullities and cannot confer title, especially where land is classified as government poramboke (Paras 48 and 49).
(C) Burden of Proof - Exception for home farms and personal property - The onus to prove that a property constitutes a home farm or personal property under Regulations 17 and 18 of the abolition regulations lies on the person asserting the same as a limited exception to the general vesting of jagirs in the State (Para 31).
Facts of the case:
Dispute over lands classified as government poramboke since 1912. Multiple parties claimed title through various sources, including jagir grants from a ruler, succession to a jagirdar who had received commutation sums after the abolition of jagirs in 1949, and revenue entries in pahanies. Some claimants relied on alleged wills and auction purchases, while others claimed the lands were personal properties or home farms. The Special Court and High Court had previously declared the lands as belonging to the State and designated some claimants as land grabbers.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revenue entries in favor of certain claimants were bogus and orchestrated through fraud in collusion with officials, as they lacked corresponding mutation orders. The receipt of commutation sums by the successors of a jagirdar disentitled them from claiming any further title or interest in the subject lands. The claims based on the ruler's firman were rejected as such grants did not transfer title and were extinguished by the abolition regulations. No evidence was led to prove the lands were personal properties or home farms.
Issues: Whether the subject lands vested in the State upon the abolition of jagirs; whether revenue entries alone can establish title over land classified as government poramboke; and whether the receipt of commutation sums extinguishes the jagirdar's claim to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: Jagir grants provide rights to revenue, not ownership. Statutory abolition transferred total administration and title to the State. Any subsequent revenue entries lacking legal basis are void. The acceptance of commutation payment as compensation for the loss of jagir rights serves as a legal acknowledgement that the interest in the land has ceased.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri- 1307, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam- 751, AOR M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co- 1336, AOR Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. V Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devansh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar- 295, AOR Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta- 1677, AOR Mr. Mesala Venu Gopal, Adv. Mr. Sorokhaibam Shantii Jyoti Singh, Adv. Mr. Amith J, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. S Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.B. Suresh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kamana Divya Sree, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Ms. Hari Sreedhar, Adv. Ms. Solanki Das, Adv. Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari- 1155, AOR Mr. K.sriram, Adv. Ms. Vandana Khanorkar, Adv. Mr. B Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra- 1436, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Mahesh Babu- 1223, AOR Mr. Raavi Yogesh Venkata, AOR Ms. Sahana Sathiya Narayanan, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Mohd Shahib, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv. For M/s Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. B Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra- 1436, AOR Mr. Anirudh Ray, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kamana Divya Sreee, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Ms. Solanki Das, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Ch Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. T Meikandan, Adv. Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. M Vishnu Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. V Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar- 1107, AOR Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain- 2448, AOR Mr. C.S Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Ronak Shankar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Akash Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. Manish Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik- 3830, AOR Mr. Nagender Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra- 1597, AOR Mr. Abhinav Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv. Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph- 2559, AOR M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates- 2159, AOR Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Ronak Shankar Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Sindoora Vnl- 3122, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri- 1307, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam- 751, AOR M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co- 1336, AOR Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. V Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devansh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar- 295, AOR Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta- 1677, AOR Mr. Mesala Venu Gopal, Adv. Mr. Sorokhaibam Shantii Jyoti Singh, Adv. Mr. Amith J, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. S Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.B. Suresh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kamana Divya Sree, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Ms. Hari Sreedhar, Adv. Ms. Solanki Das, Adv. Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari- 1155, AOR Mr. K.sriram, Adv. Ms. Vandana Khanorkar, Adv. Mr. B Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra- 1436, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Mahesh Babu- 1223, AOR Mr. Raavi Yogesh Venkata, AOR Ms. Sahana Sathiya Narayanan, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Mohd Shahib, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv. For M/s Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. B Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra- 1436, AOR Mr. Anirudh Ray, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kamana Divya Sreee, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Ms. Solanki Das, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Ch Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. T Meikandan, Adv. Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. M Vishnu Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. V Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar- 1107, AOR Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain- 2448, AOR Mr. C.S Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Ronak Shankar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Akash Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. Manish Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik- 3830, AOR Mr. Nagender Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra- 1597, AOR Mr. Abhinav Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv. Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph- 2559, AOR M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates- 2159, AOR Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Ronak Shankar Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Sindoora Vnl- 3122, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants asserted entitlement to lands through private inheritance and past revenue records, while the state contended the lands vested in it upon abolition of jagirs. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
3. Court observed that jagir grants were restrictive, that subject lands vested in the state upon statutory abolition, and that revenue entries claiming private title were unsubstantiated and fraudulent. (Para 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 )
4. Upon the abolition of jagirs, all rights in jagir lands vested in the state, rendering subsequent private claims through inheritance or unauthorized revenue entries non-est. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 52 , 55 , 56 )
5. The High Court judgment declaring the state rightful owner of the subject lands is upheld and all appeals stand dismissed. (Para 60 , 64 )
6. Did the grant of a jagir confer permanent title to the land upon the jagirdar?
No, a jagir grant signified a right to land revenue rather than ownership of the land itself. Following the abolition of jagirs by statutory regulation, all administrative rights transferred to the state, and any lingering rights of former jagirdars were restricted solely to receiving commutation sums. (Para 26 , 29 , 33 , 37 )
7. Can private claims to land prevail over state ownership if evidence of private ownership is missing or fraudulent?
No. The state is the rightful owner of lands vested in it via statutory abolition. Revenue entries devoid of authorization or formal transfer proceedings are considered nullities and insufficient to establish private title over state-vested property, especially when records consistently confirm the lands as government poramboke. (Para 47 , 49 , 51 , 52 )
8. Does the exception under Regulations 17 and 18 for 'personal property' protect an entire jagir village?
No. Regulations 17 and 18 provide narrow exceptions for specific 'home farms' (seri khudkasht) or proven personal property. The burden of proof lies heavily on the claimant to demonstrate the land constitutes such an exception, and mere reliance on the general jagir grant is insufficient to override the vesting of the estate in the state. (Para 30 , 31 , 56 )
JUDGMENT :
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1. The appellants before us have challenged the common impugned judgment dated 16.04.2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 889/1998, 1976/1998, 2260/1998, 2267/1998, 4156/2000, 13650/2000, 3062/1998, 6240/1995, 3120/1998 and 8008/1992.
2. Before we proceed to deal with the matter, we deem it appropriate to place on record the fact that, on one of the earlier occasions, while hearing the present batch of matters, we had heard all the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents, at length. However, on a request made for making further submissions, we had adjourned the matter. Subsequently, new Senior Counsel have been engaged and arguments were made once again, which we permitted.
3. A strange plea was made on the day of reserving this batch of matters that the matters shall not be proceeded with by this Bench. Though, the only possible entity that could have raised an objection to proceed with determination of the present appeals would be the respondent - State of Telangana, however, such a plea was raised on behalf of one of the appellants. Thereafter, wisdom having dawned upon, the said objection was withdrawn, and arguments have been made, once again, through the newly engaged Senior Counsel. Accordingly, we have elaborately heard the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents, as well as the written submissions.
BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS
4. The lands involved in the present appeals are situated in Survey Nos. 100 and 101 of Village Miyapur, Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. These properties have their own chequered history. Thus, it is not a surprise that the same position is sought to be extended even before us.
5. It is a peculiar case where multiple individuals and societies claim their title and possession through three different sources, by way of inheritance and various conveyance deeds. The Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘1982 Act’) in a set of Land Grabbing Cases (for short, ‘LGCs’) bearing LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994, declared the respondents therein as land grabbers of the schedule land in Survey No. 100, of Village Miyapur, Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. In these LGCs, the erstwhile unified State of Andhra Pradesh was not made a party. Another set of land grabbing cases in LGC Nos. 110/1994, 131/1995 and 136/1995 were filed, wherein, the State was duly impleaded as a party. The same were dismissed, holding that the disputed lands were “poramboke lands” and belonged to the State.
6. Aggrieved by the findings rendered by the Special Court, the appellants approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 889, 1976, 2260, 2267 of 1998 and Writ Petition Nos. 4156 and 13650 of 2000 challenging the judgment dated 31.12.1997 rendered in LGC Nos. 131/1995 and 136/1995. Further, Writ Petition Nos. 3062/1998 and 3120/1998 were preferred challenging the judgment dated 31.12.1997 rendered in LGC No. 110/1994, and Writ Petition No. 6240/1995 was preferred challenging the judgment dated 06.02.1995, rendered in LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994.
7. The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the impugned judgment upheld the findings rendered by the Special Court in LGC Nos. 131 and 136 of 1995 and LGC No. 110/1994, and set aside the final judgment in LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994. The applicants and the private respondents therein were declared as land grabbers, and it was held that the title of the disputed lands vested in the State.
8. Both the Special Court and High Court have dealt with the issues in extenso, which are sought to be assailed before us. It is apposite to mention that some of the appellant(s) have filed the present appeals, despite not being parties before the Specia
