Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
G. Satyanarayana - Appellants
Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 15438, 31582 of 2012; 23447, 23595, 23599, 23615, 25333, 25356, 25387, 25727, 25993, 26106 and 27589 of 2013
Decided On: 28.04.2014
Writ Petition - Land Reforms Act, 1973 - Land Case - Though the facts vary from case to case, a common issue is involved in all these Writ Petitions, namely, what documents determine title and ownership to land - While some petitioners claimed their rights based on entries in revenue record, others based their claims on long standing possession as evidenced by registered sale deeds - Held, On the facts already noted, it is seen that the petitioners application for conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture was kept pending on the ground that instructions from the Government are awaited in view of recording of the land as dots and in the village Diglot and the District Collector also has given directions to await further instructions from the Government in respect of lands - Since no decision has been taken by the competent authority till now, it is appropriate that respondent No. 3 decides the petitioners application for conversion considering the evidence that may be placed by the petitioners including the series of sale deeds commencing, without treating the entry in the Diglot/RSR as conclusive proof of the nature of the land - Respondent No. 3 is also directed to follow the findings rendered in this Judgment with respect to the evidentiary value of the entries in the revenue record including the RSR and take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of this order - Writ Petition disposed of. (Para 180)
Key Points: - The judgment addresses what documents constitute title and their evidentiary value in land disputes (!) (!) . - It analyzes the evidentiary value of revenue records (RSR, TSLR, Diglot/Sethwar, Adangal, etc.) versus private deeds and pattas (!) (!) . - It sets out that RSR/TSLR are not conclusive proof of title and may be displaced by patta, sale deeds, and other records; emphasizes possession and long-standing transactions as supporting evidence; outlines when summary eviction is inappropriate due to bona fide title disputes (!) (!) (!) . - It discusses the role of pattadar passbooks, patta as title, and the legal framework around assignment, pattas, and restrictions on alienation (Laoni Rules, Act 9 of 1977, etc.) (!) (!) . - It cautions that entries in revenue records carry evidentiary value but are not standalone proof of title; requires consideration of multiple records and context (!) (!) . - It notes that where there is a bona fide dispute of title, eviction under the 1905 Act is not permissible and civil litigation should be pursued (!) (!) . - It provides addendum conclusions: patta gives absolute title; Laoni pattas with transfer rights confer title; pattadar/tenant rights under various acts confer ownership; in absence of patta, revenue records guide title determination with caution (!) (!) (!) . - It describes the primacy of long possession and multiple sale transactions as basis for presumption of title, rebuttable by Government evidence (!) (!) . - It clarifies that TSLR entries are not conclusive proof of title and must be weighed with other records; in some cases Adangal does not constitute ROR post-1971 (!) (!) .
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. Though the facts vary from case to case, a common issue is involved in all these Writ Petitions, namely, what documents determine title and ownership to land. While some petitioners claimed their rights based on entries in revenue record, others based their claims on long standing possession as evidenced by registered sale deeds. The Government denied their title mainly based on the entries in the revenue records such as Re-Survey and Resettlement Register (RSR) and Town Survey Land Register (TSLR). This Court, therefore, felt the necessity of dealing with these cases together by addressing this common aspect, which is faced by it day-in and day-out. Before discussing the general law governing the subject, it is appropriate to briefly refer to the facts of each case hereunder:
Brief facts:
W.P. Nos. 23595, 23599 & 23615 of 2013:
2. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions who claimed ownership under registered sale deeds were denied pattadar passbooks and title deeds by the Tahsildar, Bandaganipalli village, Udaigiri Mandal, Nellore District on the ground that as per the Adangals, the lands are shown as Government lands. The petitioners claimed that the RSR shows these lands as private persons. They have also relied upon separate but identical certificates issued by the Tahsildar concerned.
3. The respondents have not filed counter-affidavit in any of these cases.
4. The facts in both these cases are identical. The petitioners have claimed right under registered sale deeds. They were granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds for Ac. 39-33 cents each in Sy. Nos. 436, 438, 439 to 442 of Boodili village, Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur District. The petitioners' vendor was declared as a surplus land holder to the extent of Ac. 5-59 cents under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short "the 1973 Act") vide CC. No. 93/75/HUP and compensation was paid to the declarant on 10-3-1978 for taking over the surplus land. The Tahsildar issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners. The land admeasuring Ac. 624-00 in Chilamathur, Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur District was proposed to be alienated for establishment of BDL Project and that out of the said land, an extent of Ac. 96-49 cents was found to be assigned land. In W.P. No. 23223/2011 filed by the brother of the petitioners' vendor, this Court has directed the Tahsildar to settle the rival claims for compensation. The Tahsildar, Gorantla Mandal has passed an order in Rc. No. 208/2010/A, dated 16-10-2012 holding that in the RSR of Bodili village, the lands are recorded as Government land and that there were no entries in the village records showing that the lands were assigned to any person. While admitting that the lands are subjected to sale transactions from the year 1934 and that the entries in 10(1) Register recorded the names of private persons, it was however maintained that the incorporation of those entries was without verification by any officer.
5. Separate, but identical counter affidavits have been filed in W.P. Nos. 25333 and 25356 of 2013 by the Revenue officials and the A.P. Industrial and Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). In both these Writ Petitions, the petitioners' claim for compensation has been denied based on the entries in the RSR showing the land as belonging to the Government.
6. The mother of petitioner No. 1-M. Sesharatnamma, purchased an extent of 2000 sq. yards under registered sale deed No. 677/1963, dated 21-2-1963. In the year 1975, she obtained permission from the then Vijayawada Municipality and constructed an A.C. sheet shed, which is being used as a godown-cum-mosaic tiles manufacturing unit. Since the death of his mother in the year 1975, petitioner No. 1 is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Petitioner No. 2 has succeeded to an extent of 180 2/3 sq. yards under a registered Will executed by one Vemuri Nancharamma who has purchased the said p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
