IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R.Raghunandan Rao, J.
T. Bali Reddy (Died), S/o T. Obilesu and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Prl Secretary Revenue Dept and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No: 34878 of 2017
Decided On : 02-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of ownership and possession (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counter-representation and dismissal by authorities (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. limitations on claims after long periods (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. authority's power must be exercised reasonably (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. requirement for seeking legal relief in civil court (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. writ petition allowed, prior order set aside (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
R Raghunandan Rao, J.
The Writ Petition was filed by the three petitioners. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, all the three petitioners have passed away and their legal representatives were brought on record as the Petitioners 4 to 8.
2. The petitioners claim ownership and possession over Ac.43.20 cents of land, in Sy.No.164-6 of Julakaluva Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananathapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. This land is said to have been purchased from the grandfather of the 6th respondent, by way of registered sale deeds, in the years 1939, 1943, 1944 and 1951, by the father of the deceased petitioners 1 to 3. The case of the petitioners 1 to 3 is that, an extent of Ac.46.60 cents had been purchased initially. However, the father of the petitioners 1 to 3, during his lifetime, had sold away Ac.3.36 cents of land in favour of third parties and Ac.43.20 cents remained with the family of the petitioners. The names of the petitioners 1 to 3 are also said to have been mutated in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors over these lands. In the year 1972, a partition is said to have been effected between the petitioners 1 to 3 and their father, on account of which, the names of the petitioners 1 to 3 were entered in the revenue record as pattadars and possessors over Ac.12.75 cents, Ac.13.70 cents and Ac.16.75 cents of lands, respectively, in the names of the petitioners 1 to 3, in survey No.164-6(B). The pattadar pass books and title deeds had been issued in the favour of the petitioners, in the year 1988. The petitioners would additionally contend that the father of the petitioners had obtained certain loans, in the year 1950, for development of this land and that he had deposited the title deeds of these lands with the Government in respect of Ac.46.60 cents.
3. The 6threspondent, made a representation under Section 6 -A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971[for short “the Act, 1971”], on 30.07.2014, before the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds to an extent of Ac.12.10 cents, in Sy.No.164-6 on the ground that there was a registered partition between himself and other family members, executed on 29.01.2014, under which this land had fallen to the share of the 6th respondent. This representation was refused by the 5th respondent, by way an endorsement, dated 23.08.2014, in file No.199/2014/B, on the ground that there was no vacant land available in this survey number and all the land was already shown in the names of different pattadars. Aggrieved by this endorsement, the 6th respondent approached the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The said 4th respondent-RDO after verifying the records, had dismissed the appeal of the 6th respondent by an Order, dated 07.03.2015, in file No.D.Dis.No.D2/5629/2014, on the ground that the land in question was private patta land and as there are complicated facts, it would be appropriate that the case is decided by a competent Civil Court.
4. The 6th respondent aggrieved by these observations, filed a revision before the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector. At that stage, the 2nd respondent-District Collector, though the revision was filed before the Joint Collector, sought a report from the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent-RDO then submitted a detailed report, dated 11.04.2017, vide Rc.No.5629/D2/2014, wherein it was stated that the total extent of land, in Sy.No.164 was Ac.74.49 cents while the available land was only Ac.49.00 cents, in Sy.No.164-1 to 164- 5. The report also stated that an extent of Ac.46.60
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs. Chilla Ramarao & Ors
M.B. Ratnam & Ors Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District & Ors.
Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Anr Vs. D. Narsing Rao & Ors
Claims for land ownership after significant delays must be addressed by civil courts, as administrative bodies cannot adjudicate on disputed titles without violating established rights.
The court ruled that delayed administrative actions undermining property rights must be resolved through civil courts, emphasizing the importance of timely legal recourse.
The exercise of revisional power under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act after a significant delay is improper and violates principles of natural justice.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that revenue authorities are not competent to decide complicated questions of title, and adherence to procedures mandated under the Act and the Rul....
The Revenue Divisional Officer lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate applications for land mutation, which must be filed before the Tahsildar according to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pa....
Point of law: inordinate delay and laches in prosecuting their grievance disentitles them to seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.