Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19533
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J
Smt.Katta Anadamma Andalu and 5 Others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and 7 Others – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.24039 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.M.R. Velu
For the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, A. Prabhakar Rao
Revenue entries (pahanies), while not conclusive proof of title, create a presumption of possession and ownership that can estop a party from challenging them if they remained silent for decades, especially when consistent with other evidence.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge under the A.P Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, regarding the cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The petitioners claimed ownership through succession and subsequent purchase of land in Sy.No.374/A. The respondents claimed the property based on an unregistered partition deed dated 04.12.1960. The court found that the revenue records (pahanies) consistently reflected the respondents' predecessor as the pattadar for the disputed extent, while the petitioners' predecessor was recorded for a different survey number. The primary issues were whether revenue authorities could rely on an unregistered partition deed and the evidentiary value of pahanies in determining title. The court reasoned that while revenue records are not conclusive proof of title, the consistent entries in pahanies over several decades, coupled with the fact that the petitioners' predecessor never challenged these entries during his lifetime, created an estoppel against the petitioners. Furthermore, the court noted that the respondents were found to be in actual possession of the land. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land dispute and procedural history of previous litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to revenue authority's jurisdiction over unregistered partition deeds. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. claim of ownership based on partition, possession, and notice requirements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. application of limitation and notice requirements in revenue appeals. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. pahanies evidence ownership and create estoppel against subsequent challenges. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. dismissal of the writ petition based on sound reasoning and evidence. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in passing the order dated 05.10.2019 in Revision Petition No.E3/1589/2018, thereby confirming the orders of respondent No.3 dated 03.03.2018 in File No.A/2931/2017 and the order of respondent No.4 dated 03.06.2017 in Rc.No.B/138/2016, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the A.P Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the ROR Act’) and the Rules made thereunder and consequently, prayed to set aside the orders, dated 05.10.2019.
2. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.3 to 6, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondents Nos.5 to 7.
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that originally, Katta Adireddy was the pattadar and owner of land admeasuring Acs.3-27 guntas in Sy.No.374/A of Kadipikonda Village, Hanamkonda Mandal (presently Kazipet Mandal); that on his demise, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the subject property as his legal heirs and they were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the year 1994 and 1995; that they executed registered Agreement of sale-cum-General power of attorney, dated 14.09.2007, in favour of one Puli Swamy and others, who in turn executed sale deed dated 29.01.2011 in favour of petitioner Nos.3 to 6; that subsequently petitioner No.4 executed a registered release deed bearing document No.10904/2015 dated 14.10.2015 in favour of petitioner No.3, 5 and 6, thus, petitioner Nos.3, 5 and 6 became absolute owners of the subject property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
3.1. It is further averred that while so, respondent Nos.5 to 7 approached respondent No.3, objecting the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of late Katta Adireddy, and claimed the subject property based on an unregistered partition deed dated 04.12.1960 and that respondent No.3, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry, passed orders, dated 15.10.2008, cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of late Katta Adireddy; and later, respondent No.4 issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of respondent No.5 to 7. Aggrieved by the orders of respondent No.3 dated 15.10.2008, the petitioners preferred Revision before respondent No.2 and as no action was being taken, they filed W.P.No.16268 of 2012 and the same was disposed of, vide orders dated 05.06.2012, directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the Revision within four weeks and also granted status quo as regards the entries in revenue records for a period of four weeks. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.2 considered the Revision and dismissed the same by order dated 31.08.2012 and that, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.29022 of 2012 and this Court vide orders dated 24.11.2015 set aside the impugned order therein and remanded the matter to respondent No.4-Tahsildar to consider the application filed by respondent No.5 therein (respondent No.6 herein) and another and to pass orders in accordance of law.
3.2. That in pursuance thereof, respondent No.4 passed orders dated 03.06.
