SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 4

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M R S Srinivas
For the Respondent: Karnam Ramesh, GP For Revenue (AP)

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.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 6-A and Section 8(2) - Claims to pattadar pass books and title deeds after a significant lapse of time are barred by laches; jurisdiction to decide such claims lies with civil courts - The order of the Joint Collector allowing such claims was challenged as arbitrary and without jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 10, 14, and 16)

(B) Limitation - The court finds that claims for land after 71 years or 26 years in this case are unreasonable and violate the doctrine of fair play. The revenue authority cannot bypass the civil court's jurisdiction in disputed title matters. (Paras 11 and 14)

(C) Evidence - Entries in revenue records carry great evidentiary value; changes to such entries require proper adjudication through civil court, particularly when rights have existed substantially unchallenged over time. (Paras 11, 14, and 17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed ownership of land purchased between 1939 and 1951. The 6th respondent sought title to a portion of the land in 2014, which was contested by the petitioners as barred by laches and improper for revenue authorities.

Findings of Court:
The Joint Collector's order was arbitrary and lacked jurisdiction, necessitating recourse to civil court for resolving such disputes.

Issues: Whether the revenue authorities could adjudicate on ownership claims after a long delay and whether such actions violate the rights previously established in favor of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that claims beyond a reasonable time frame are not admissible to administrative bodies, and title disputes shall be adjudicated in civil court to ensure fair play.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, setting aside the Joint Collector's order.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top