Long-standing, uninterrupted possession raises a presumption of title, requiring substantial proof of superior title for eviction, which was lacking in this case.

ORDER :

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by respondent No.1 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad in Case No.B/2990/2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the original petitioner (deceased) under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, ‘1905 Act’) was dismissed by confirming the order dated 15.02.2006 in Proceedings No.E/2261/1990 passed by respondent No.2 – Mandal Revenue Officer, Nampally. By the said order, the original petitioner was directed to be evicted from the lands in Sy.Nos.17, 18, 19 situated at Thotaguda Revenue Village, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner – M.Jayakrishna expired on 09.08.2023. Consequently, his legal representatives i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were brought on record vide order dated 10.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023.

3. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

Factual matrix (in brief)

4. The case of the original petitioner is that the subject land was originally owned and possessed by his paternal grandmother, Smt.Mali Muthamma, from a period prior to independence. Upon her demise, the petitioner succeeded to the said property and has been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment thereof, cultivating the land and regularly paying land revenue. In support of his claim, the petitioner placed reliance on various revenue records, including Pahanies, Ryotwari Passbooks, and Town Survey Records, which reflect the name of the petitioner as well as that of his predecessor-in-title.

5. The respondents treated the subject land as Government land, contending that it forms part of the Musi riverbed, and classified the same as “Sarkari/Kharij Khata”. Proceeding on such classification, the respondent No.2 has passed order dated 15.02.2006 initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the 1905 Act.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 6 of the 1905 Act before the respondent No.1. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 10.09.2013, confirming the eviction proceedings passed by respondent No.2.

7. Challenging the aforesaid appellate order dated 10.09.2013 i.e., the consequential eviction proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:

i. That the petitioners have been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the subject land since prior to 1954, as evidenced by Pahani Patrikas (1954-55), Ryotwari Passbooks, and Town Survey Register entries. The name of Mali Muthamma was recorded in the revenue records, and subsequent mutation in the petitioner’s name was lawful.

ii. That the long-standing possession coupled with payment of land revenue and recognition in revenue records, raises a presumption of title in favour of the petitioners. The respondents have failed to establish any better title so as to displace such presumption.

iii. That the classification of the land as part of the Musi riverbed is arbitrary and unsupported by record. Town