Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2897
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
Y.Naveen Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 17850/2021
V R REDDY KOVVURI, GP FOR REVENUE, G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION), GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
A petitioner must establish ownership rights before revenue authorities can update land records, and disputes regarding title should be resolved in appropriate legal forums.
Headnote:(A) Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 43, 45, and 46 - Endowment Act, 1987 - Sections 87 and 30 - Writ Petition challenging inaction of revenue authorities regarding updation of land records and issuance of title deed - Petitioner claims title through a registered gift deed from parents - Court held that the petitioner must establish ownership before revenue records can be updated - Respondent temple's claim to land as endowment land was acknowledged but not adjudicated in this writ - Petitioner allowed to make a fresh application for mutation of name in revenue records. (Paras 1, 4, 9, and 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court cannot adjudicate on title disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution when appropriate legal remedies are available. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to update revenue records for land claimed through a gift deed, previously classified as endowment land. The earlier court order allowed registration of the deed but did not resolve title disputes.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the petitioner to apply for mutation, emphasizing the need for establishing ownership rights.
Issues: The main issues included the authority of revenue officials to update records amidst title disputes and the validity of the temple's claim to the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner must establish ownership rights before the revenue authorities can act, and the temple retains the right to pursue its claim in the appropriate forum.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
order:
Initially the Writ Petition has been filed questioning the inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in considering the petitioner’s request for updation of revenue records and issuance of e-pattadar pass books-cum- title deed in his favour in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.5.67 cents out of Ac.9.31 cents in survey No.360 of Tadigatla village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, YSR District, which was included as an Endowment Land referring to the old records and even though the said inclusion is declared as illegal vide order dated 09.12.2013 made in Writ Petition No.29506 of 2013. Subsequently the same got amended and sought relief to set aside the orders in R.Dis No.A4/8113/2012 dated 17.12.2012 said to have been issued by respondent No.4 directing to register to Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple, Tadigotla village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, YSR District as a Religious Institution and also consequential entries made by him as if the subject land belongs to him as an endowment land in Section 43 Register and direct respondent No.3 to mutate his name in the revenue records and issuance of e-pattadar pass books-cum-title deed in respect of the subject land in his favour.
2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, leaned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue authorities and Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned standing counsel for respondent-temple.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the parents of the petitioner presented a document before the Sub-Registrar for registration, but the same was refused on the ground that the subject land was classified as Endowment land. When they enquired about the same, respondent No.3 stated that the subject land was included in the list of Endowment lands basing on the entries in Re-survey and Re-settlement Register. Aggrieved by the same, the parents of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.29506 of 2013 before this Court and respondent No.6 got impleaded as respondent No.6 and this Court, vide order dated 09.12.2013 allowed the Writ Petition directing the Sub-Registrar, Kadapa Rural to entertain the sale deed produced by the parents of the petitioner for registration, giving an opportunity to respondent No.6 to take appropriate action to establish title of the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 filed W.A.SR No.152651 of 2014 and the same was dismissed for non- prosecution. He further submitted that even the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.29506 of 2013 has attained finality, the respondent authorities have not taken steps for updating the revenue records of the petitioner with regard to subject property. As such, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.
4. Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue authorities contended that if there is a dispute with regard to title, the revenue authorities cannot update the revenue records. The Tahsildar is not competent authority to decide the title. He further submitted that there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has made online applications for updation of revenue records with regard to subject land. The petitioner cannot find fault and raise unnecessary allegations against the revenue authorities. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned in-charge standing counsel for respondent temple while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavits of respondent Nos.4 to 6 contended that the respondent No.6-temple is under the administrative control of respondent No.5. The said temple was registered under Section 43 of the Act 30/1987 and the approved register maintained under Section 43 contains the details of landed properties of the temple including the subject property. Since six years, the temple has been administering and managing by the Executive Officer and prior to it, the said temple was under private management.
