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

2025 Supreme(AP) 1326

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JJ.
Mamidi Srinivas And Another – Appellant 
Versus 
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department - Respondent
WRIT APPEALS Nos. 639, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 964of 2024, W.A.No.639 of 2024
Decided On : 15-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G. Vivekanand, Sri V. V. Ravi Prasad
For the Respondent: Sri K. Bhagat Singh, Agp for Revenue, Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao assisted by Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The common judgment analyzes whether the Revenue Divisional Officer had appellate jurisdiction and the 6th respondent’s ability to file under Section 5B of the ROR Act (p.11, p.12, p.15). (!) (!) (!) - It is held that mutation entries in revenue records are fiscal, do not create or extinguish title, and have no presumptive value on title; title disputes are to be decided by a civil court (p.58, p.61, p.63). (!) (!) (!) - The court maintains the dismissal of writ petitions with directions to approach the Civil Court, but sets aside the directive to implement the impugned orders forthwith (p.67, p.70, p.72). (!) (!) (!) - The court upholds maintaining status quo on possession for a further period (p.71). (!) - The overall conclusion is that there is no illegality in the common judgment; disputes involving title should be decided in civil court (p.66, p.67). (!) (!)

What is the scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 5B of the ROR Act as applied to the 6th respondent in the presented case?

What is the effect of mutation entries in revenue records on title, and can revenue mutations determine title or convey rights to the writ petitioners?

What is the court’s ruling regarding directing parties to approach the Civil Court for title disputes and the appropriateness of maintaining status quo in possession?


JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri G.

Vivekanand, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.639 of 2024; Sri V. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.642, 643, 644, 645 and 646 of 2024, Sri K. Bhagat Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents and Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents in all the Writ Appeals.

2. These Appeals Nos.639, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646 and 964 of 2024 arise out of a common judgment and order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.22886, 19707, 19866, 22212, 22135, 14394 and 14514 of 2020 respectively.

3. The facts and also the contentions advanced being the same, all the aforesaid Appeals were being decided by this common judgment. The Writ Appeal No.639 of 2024 is taken as the leading appeal of the batch cases.

4. The Writ Appellants are the Writ Petitioners.

5. The main contest is between the writ petitioners/writ appellants, and one Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, 6th respondent in W.A.No.639 of 2024 (also 6th respondent in W.P.No.22886 of 2020) and also arrayed as different respondent number in the rest of the writ petitions/writ appeals.

I. Facts:

6. One Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Appa Rao had originally acquired property to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Revenue Village and Mandal in Krishna District in partition between his father Raja Meka Venkata Narasimha Apparao Bahadur and his brother Raja Meka Venkata Navaneetha Krishna Apparao Bahadur under partition deed, vide document No.4336/1957, dated 19.08.1957. Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Appa Rao is said to have sold his property to an extent of Ac.27.00 to Inuganti Narasimha Rao and his brother Inuganti Ramachandra Rao through an unregistered agreement of sale dated 31.12.1970. Inuganti Ramachandra Rao died intestate, and as bachelor on 08.11.1975. His brother Inuganti Narasimha Rao being the sole legal heir succeeded to his estate and became the absolute owner and possessor to that extent of Ac.27.00. Inuganti Narasimha Rao sold that property to various persons (transferees) in bits and pieces during the year 1985. The writ petitioners of the writ petitions/the appellants in writ appeals are either the purchasers from Inuganti Narasimha Rao or their vendors were the transferees from Inuganti Narasimha Rao under different document numbers of different dates being the registered sale deeds. Their names were recorded in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were issued.

7. Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi (6th respondent in W.A.No.639 of 2024) is the sister of Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. He died on 03.12.2014. Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi claimed to have acquired his estate under a Will dated 20.01.2014, she filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid (4th respondent in W.A.No.639 of 2024) being ROR Appeal No.19 of 2017 and claimed to be the absolute owner and prayed to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the vendors i.e., the writ petitioners.

8. The Revenue Divisional Officer vide Order dated 30.04.2018, allowed the appeal, cancelled the pattadar passbooks and the title deeds which were in favour of the writ petitioners and deleted their names in Land Record of Rights. The writ petitioners filed revision petitions, which were dismissed vide Order dated 21.07.2020 by the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 3rd respondent. Pursuant thereto, some of the respondents, including the official respondents were insisting and pressurizing the writ petitioners to vacate the land and attempted to dispossess by use of police force.

9. The writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the appellate Order dated 30.04.2018 and the revisional Order dated 21.07.2020, as also the action of the respondents in trying to disp

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 Back to top