Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.M. Mohiuddin, J.
Ramgari Sathi Reddy, R.R. District. – Appellant
Versus
The Govt. OF A.P., Reptd.By Secretary, Hyderabad, And 7 Otrs. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.1424 of 2011
Decided On : 27-10-2025
Key Points: - The High Court held that questions of title must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, not revenue authorities, under Article 226 in this context. (!) (!) - The petitioner's claim involves complex questions of title and an amendment of revenue records via a panchanama conducted by the MRO, which is not provided for under the Act; such action is beyond the MRO’s competence and is liable to be nullity. (!) (!) (!) - The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and Joint Collector correctly held that the panchanama cannot determine title and directed the parties to pursue Civil Court for title adjudication; writ petition challenging these orders is not appropriate. (!) (!) (!) - The petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit seeking declaration of title; therefore, maintaining parallel writ proceedings is inappropriate and would undermine the Civil Court process. (!) (!) - The writ petition was dismissed, with observations that Civil Court shall adjudicate title independently on merits, and there shall be no order as to costs. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to revenue authority orders based on title dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's jurisdiction under article 226 considered. (Para 4) |
| 3. writ petition not appropriate for title disputes. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. existence of alternative remedy emphasized. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. proper jurisdiction exercised by revenue authorities. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. improperly authorized panchanama deemed nullity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. no error in prior orders regarding jurisdiction of title. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. writ petition dismissed; civil court retains jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
G.M. Mohiuddin, J.
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District East Division (4th respondent) in case No.A2/237/2008 dated 03.01.2009 which was confirmed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District (3rd respondent) in case No.D5/1097/2009 dated 17.03.2010.
2. The petitioner seeks to quash these orders and consequently restore the Pachamama (site inspection report) drawn by the Mandal Revenue Officer (5th respondent) in file No. B/1828/2006 dated 04.05.2006 regarding the property in Sy.No.206 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:
3.1 The petitioner claims an extent of 1 Acre 9 ½ guntas in Sy.No.206 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as his share, based on ancestral partition between the families of the original recorded pattadar Sri Ramgari Malla Reddy and the original pattadar’s brother Chandra Reddy. The petitioner claims that after the death of recorded pattadar, Sri Malla Reddy and Sri Chandra Reddy, their sons Sri Ramachandra Reddy and Sri Veera Reddy mutually agreed to cultivate the land in equal shares. Accodingly, Sri Ramachandra Reddy cultivated an extent of Ac.1.09½ gunats and Sri Veera Reddy cultivated an equal extent of Ac.1.09½ guntas. Both brothers continued such separate possession and cultivation during their lifetimes. The pahani patrikas reflected this arrangement for several years; however, due to wrong entries made by the Village Patwari, discrepancies subsequently appeared in the records.
3.2 The petitioner approached the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer) Medchal Mandal, upon discovering the discrepancies as regards the entries in the revenue records, in the year 2006.
3.3 The Tahsildar ordered that a panchanama (site inspection) to be conducted and accordingly the Mandal Revenue Inspector conducted a panchamana in File No.B/1828/06 dated 04.05.2006.
3.4 The GPA Holder of respondent Nos.7 & 8, one Sri Malla Reddy, as one of the panch witness in the said panchanama spoke about the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment and entitlement to the said property.
3.5 However, the said General Power of Attorney from the respondent Nos.7 and 8 changed his stand for wrongful gain and obtained an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney from the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 and appealed against panchanama in File No.B/1828/06 dated 04.05.2006 before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer Ranga Reddy East Division challenging the panchanama.
3.6 The Revenue Divisional officer by virtue of an order dated 03.01.2009 in Case No.A2/237/2008 (P2) set aside the panchanama. The Revenue Divisional Officer noted that there were no orders of the MRO and the appeal was preferred against the panchanama; that the MRO had changed the entries in the revenue records based on the panchanama; that conducting such panchanama was beyond the competence of revenue authorities; and the dispute involved complex questions of title and set aside the panchanama and directed the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated.
3.7 The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer filed a
The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited, and questions of title must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, not revenue authorities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Revenue Authorities do not have the power or jurisdiction to decide complicated questions of title and possession, especially in cases involvi....
Revenue authorities are incompetent to make findings in respect of title or ownership in a civil dispute and should relegate parties to approach the competent civil court for resolution.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve title disputes, directing parties to civil court for adjudication.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
