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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 523

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J.
Sri Rama Prabhakar and others - Appellants 
Versus 
State of Telangana - Respondent 
Writ Petition Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
Decided on : 21-04-2025
 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P. Soma Sekhara Naidu.
For the Respondents:Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior

Registered sale deeds and possession establish land ownership unless proven otherwise; the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 - Section 38-E - Telangana Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 - Section 9 - Writ petitions challenging the order of Joint Collector regarding land ownership and possession - Petitioners purchased land through registered sale deeds and were in possession for over 30 years - Respondent claimed land as service inam without valid title - Court found the impugned order illegal and arbitrary, lacking proper inquiry and basis. (Paras 3, 10, 29)

(B) Land ownership and possession - The principle that registered sale deeds and mutation records establish ownership unless proven otherwise - The burden of proof lies on the party claiming rights over the land. (Paras 11, 12, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners purchased land in Kusumurthy Village through registered sale deeds and were in peaceful possession for over 30 years. The respondent claimed the land as service inam, but the petitioners argued they had valid title and possession.

Findings of Court:
The court found the order of the Joint Collector to be arbitrary and set it aside, restoring the petitioners' rights to the land.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the respondent's claim over the land and the legality of the Joint Collector's order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners' registered sale deeds and possession established their rights, and the respondent failed to provide valid evidence of ownership.

Result: Writ petitions allowed, impugned order set aside.

ORDER :

(K. SARATH, J.)

Since both these writ petitions are filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.3- Joint Collector in Revision Case No.D1/87/205 dated 16.02.2019, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in W.P.No.9064 of 2019, the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-10 gts in Sy.No.8/A and 8/AA through registered sale deed document No.683/1997 dated 12.06.1997, the petitioner No.2 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-06 gts in Sy.No.126 through registered sale deed document No.638/1995 dated 28.03.1995, Ac.2-04 gts in Sy.No.122 and Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.123 through registered sale deed document No.637/1995 dated 28.03.1995 and the petitioner No.3 has purchased the land admeasuring to a total extent of Ac.15.26 gts in Sy.No.125 through registered sale deed document No.639/1995 dated 28.03.1995 and the petitioners have purchased the properties from the respondent No.7 herein i.e, Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary, and the said lands are situated in Kusumurthy Village, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued in their favour and since then, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of those lands for more than 30 years.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in W.P.No.9093 of 2019, the grandfather of the petitoner No.1 and great grandfather of the petitoner Nos.2 to 5 i.e. late Sayanna was the protected tenant of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12.26 gts in Sy.No.142 situated at Kusumurthy Village and a certificate of ownership was issued by the competent authority under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 vide File No.E/1513/75. After the death of said Sayanna, his sons had inherited the said property and thereafter the petitioners being legal heirs have inherited the same and through family arrangement, they have divided the said land and obtained pattadar passbooks and they have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares of land.

5. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.9064 of 2019 is taken as a lead case.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the revenue records, one Kista Chary and his successors were the pattadars and owners of the suit schedule land and the same was purchased by the petitioners. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Narayanpet in respect of suit schedule properties and other lands initiated land reforms proceedings against the successors of said Kista Chary and held that the declarant holds the land admeasuring to an extent of 1.5386 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date in C.C.No.1412 of 1975 dated 09.06.1976. The respondent authorities have also granted pattas to some individuals in respect of said excess land of the legal heirs of late Kista Chary, however, the possession remained with the legal heirs of late Kista Chary. He further submits that against the said proceedings dated 09.06.1976, the two widows of late Kista Chary filed Land Reforms Appeal No.14 of 1982 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubagar and the same was allowed on 02.12.1983 holding that the appellants therein have to be treated as separate individuals and they were entitled to separate holding each and the said Judgment has became final. In view of the said Judgment, the pattas granted in favour of some individuals in respect of the excess land as per the proceedings dated 09.06.1976 were cancelled by the revenue authorities.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary is the adopted son of two widows of Kista Char

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