Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
Sontem Prabhkar Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21948 of 2025
Decided on : 29-08-2025
For the Petitioner: V R REDDY KOVVURI
For the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Writ Petition
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT: S.5, S.6
Headnote
(B) Administrative Authority - The Tahsildar's proceedings were deemed correct as they did not declare rights but required amendments in revenue records, clarifying ownership based on possession rather than title alone. (Paras 7, 10, 14)
(C) Legal Principles - Title does not equate to possession; revenue records indicate possession, not ownership. (Paras 11, 12, and 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims ownership derived from a title granted in 1952 but faces opposition from the 5th respondent who succeeded in a permanent injunction suit. The Tahsildar subsequently ordered mutation in favor of the 5th respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tahsildar's order did not illegitimately declare rights based on prior judicial findings; claiming that ownership does not imply possession.
Issues: The central questions were the entitlement to relief based on the Tahsildar’s order and the function of the Tahsildar.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that title alone does not assure possession; thus, the argument regarding the Tahsildar being functus officio was unsupported, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims ownership and background of her mother’s title. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner argues against the tahsildar’s authority and legal validity of records. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on factual discrepancies and legal precedence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. legal principle stating title does not guarantee possession. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. writ petition is dismissed without costs. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declaring the Order in Ref.No.B/159/2025 dated 02.06.2025 of the respondent No.4 inter alia in declaring the respondent No.5 as the title holder of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.405/1 Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.405/2 and Ac.3.06 cents in Sy.No.405/3 of Bandlapalli Village fields Ramapuram Mandal Annamayya District merely basing on the permanent injunction granted in her favour over the aforementioned lands despite the Trial Court clear findings of title discrepancies and the fact that the petitioner’s husband lost the suit for declaration of title as arbitrary illegal contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and the Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and the Rules made there under and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and for appropriate relief.
2. On comprehending the prayer, the Writ Petition appears to be premature.
3. The brief narration of facts:
The petitioner claims ownership in an extent of Ac.2-00 and in extent of Ac.3.60 cents in Sy.No.405/2 and in extent of Ac.3.06 cents in Sy.No.405/3 of Bandlapalli Village fields Ramapuram Mandal. Petitioner submits that this property belongs to petitioner’s mother, Sontem Nagamma @ Savitramma, who filed a legal suit (O.S. No. 345 of 1952) in the District Munsif Court of Kadapa for a declaration of title. The court decreed the suit in her favor, and possession was granted through a final decree in I.A. No. 601 of 1953. Since then, the petitioner mother has enjoyed peaceful possession of the property until her death. The Tahsildar issued Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds in her favour. After her demise, the petitioner inherited the property.
4. However, the 5th respondent, Avula Reddappa Reddy, filed Civil Suit O.S.No.21 of 2010 in the Junior Civil Judge Court, Lakkireddipalli, against the petitioner and four others for a declaration of title over the land in Survey No. 405/2, which was dismissed on June 24th, 2019. Later, the 5th respondent filed Civil Suit O.S.No.39 of 2012 seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioner and others from interfering with the property in Survey Nos. 405/2, 405/3, 406/2, and the old house bearing D.No.10/3. This suit was decreed in favor of the 5th respondent on 06.04.2016. Subsequently, an appeal (A.S.No.9 of 2017) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the V Additional District Judge in Rayachoty on June 30.06.2023, in favour of the 5th respondent.
5. Based on these judgments, the 4th respondent Tahsildar concluded and instructed the 5th respondent to submit a relevant application and documentary proof through Mee-Seva for the mutation of her name in the revenue records and the issuance of Pattadar Pass Books, as per the impugned proceedings Reference B/159/2025 dated 02.06.2025. The petitioner argues that this order is incorrect and contradicts the findings of the civil suit O.S.No.345 of 1952. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent Tahsildar does not have the authority to declare rights among parties, having become functus officio, as the petitioner’s rights were already established. Additionally, the petitioner states that her name has been duly mutated in the revenue records, and Pattadar Pass Books were issued in her favour. Thus, the 4th respondent cannot direct the 5th resp
