Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1661

Sanjay Kumar, Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ
Premal Pratap Joisher – Appellant
Versus
Vikram Jethalal Joisher – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026 | SLP(C) NOS. 12819-12820/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Niranjan Reddy, Raavi Yogesh Venkata, Kotte Venkata Pawan Kumar, Sana
For the Respondents: Mullapudi Rambabu, Nithin Chowdary Pavuluri, Mahima Pandey, Subham Saurabh, Praveen Kumar Sharma, Sampathi Rao Dikshitha, Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Niyati Law Chambers LLP, B. Adinarayana Rao, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Tatini Basu, Kumar Shashank, Obulapuram Keerthi, Mrk Chakravarthy

A High Court should not bypass established statutory appellate mechanisms in revenue matters simply due to the efflux of time; it must relegate parties to the appropriate statutory authority to ensure procedural propriety.

Headnote:The court examined the scope of writ jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, in matters involving pending revenue appeals. The facts involved a dispute over revenue record mutations where, despite a pending statutory appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the High Court had adjudicated the matter directly in a writ petition. The court held that the High Court erred in bypassing statutory procedures and assuming the role of the appellate authority, thereby setting aside the flawed orders of both the original writ judge and the division bench. The main issue was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction to decide a matter that was already the subject of an ongoing statutory appeal. The court reasoned that 'statutory remedies are provided to enable the parties to work out their rights before various fora at multiple levels' and that 'mere passage of time' does not justify a court setting aside statutory schemes. Consequently, the court reaffirmed the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention in revenue record matters. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of in the aforestated terms.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Point 1 (!) - Point 2 (!) - Point 3 (!)

What is the remedy available under the given circumstances in the Supreme Court decision?

What are the rights of the parties regarding relief claimed in the judgment?

What is the scope of the court's jurisdiction in the matter?

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and mutation dispute context. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Writ Appeal Nos. 397 and 404 of 2025. By the said order, a division bench of the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 21407/2008.

3. The matter relates to mutation in the revenue records.

4. The first round of civil litigation between the parties apropos the prayer for a permanent injunction by Jethalal Haridas Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DeepaJk Gougilanisher culminated in dismissal of a second appeal by the High Date: 2026.04.20

17:02:47 IST Reason:

Court on 20.11.2006, confirming the dismissal of the first appeal and of the suit, earlier thereto.

5. Thereupon, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Somandepalli Village, Anantapur District, directed amendment of the record of rights.

6. Aggrieved by the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, incorporating the name of Pratap C. Joisher, the father of appellant No. 1 before us, an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and the Rules framed thereunder.

7. Ex parte interim order dated 01.11.2007 was passed in the said appeal, suspending the entries/amendments made. Notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, on 21.06.2008 to the parties.

8. Aggrieved by the entertainment of the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Writ Petition No. 21407/2008 was filed before the High Court by Pratap C. Joisher. This writ petition came to be disposed of on 24.03.2025. Perhaps owing to the long lapse of time since its institution, the learned Judge accepted the plea of the writ petitioner to decide the matter instead of relegating the parties to the appellate authority.

9. We may note, at this stage, that Original Suit No. 19/2007 was filed by Vikram Jethalal Joisher, son of Jethalal Haridas Joisher, and others, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, for declaration of their title over the suit schedule properties, viz. the very same properties in relation to which the mutation tussle was going on.

10. Significantly, the suit prayer was for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs but in the event the Court came to the conclusion that the defendants were in possession, a direction was sought that the possession be delivered to the plaintiffs through Court.

11. The said suit was decreed on 29.03.2022. The trial Court held therein that the plaintiffs were entitled to be declared the owners of the suit schedule properties but they were not in possession thereof. The trial Court further held that they would be entitled to recovery of possession through the process of law and, accordingly, directed the defendants to deliver possession of the suit schedule properties within a month, failing which the plaintiffs were given liberty to proceed according to law.

12. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the appellants before us filed A.S. No. 101/2022 before the High Court. Therein, an interim order was passed on 02.05.2022, recording that the respondents therein undertook not to take any steps with regard to execution of the decree under appeal. Certain other observations were also made with regard to payment of the land acquisition compensation, with which were are not concerned presently.

13. Taking note of the aforestated litigation, the learned Judge dealing with the writ petition observed that, in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the title of the property was with one party while the possession still remained with the other. Observ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document