A bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao was hearing a petition related to a dispute of agricultural land in Julakaluva village of Singanamala Mandal in Ananthapuramu district.
“It must be held that the revenue authorities could not have entertained any application, after a lapse of 71 years if 1943 is taken into account or more than 26 years if the year-1988 is taken into account,” said the bench on January 2.
The dispute relates to agricultural land situated in Julakaluva village of Singanamala Mandal in Ananthapuramu district.
The petitioners’ family claimed ownership over about 43 acres of land, stating that it was purchased through registered sale deeds between 1939 and 1951.
According to the petitioners, their father’s name was entered in the revenue records from the 1940s, and after a family partition, their names were mutated.
Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour in 1988, and the family continued in possession without any objection for several decades.
In 2014, a private respondent approached the tahsildar (a revenue department official)) seeking issuance of pattadar passbooks and mutation of his name over part of the same land, claiming rights under a family partition deed executed that year.
The tahsildar rejected the request, noting that the land was already recorded in the names of existing pattadars.
This decision was upheld by the revenue divisional officer, who observed that the dispute involved complicated questions of title best left to a civil court.
However, in September 2017, the joint collector set aside these orders and directed verification of old sale deeds and changes to the revenue records, prompting the petitioners to approach the high court.
The petitioners, represented by advocate MRS Srinivas argued that no claim had been raised over the land for more than 70 years and that reopening settled revenue entries after such a long delay was barred by principles of delay and laches.
They contended that revenue authorities could not decide disputed questions of title, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
They also relied on earlier judicial precedents holding that even when no specific limitation period is prescribed, revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time.
Justice Rao held that the joint collector’s 2017 order was “arbitrary and without jurisdiction,” the high court allowed the writ petition and set it aside.
He added directed that the long-standing revenue entries should not be disturbed.
The court rejected the joint collector’s reasoning and held that entertaining such a belated claim was legally impermissible.
Under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, such disputes must be resolved through a civil suit, and revenue authorities cannot assume the role of a civil court, the bench added.
Taking note that the claim was raised either 71 years after the original entries or at least 26 years after pattadar passbooks were issued, the judge observed that courts have consistently held that revisional powers, even when not subject to a fixed limitation period, must be exercised within a reasonable time.
Allowing authorities to reopen settled land records after decades would create uncertainty and seriously affect property rights, said the court.
The bench held that revisional powers are not open-ended and cannot be used to unsettle land records that have remained undisturbed for decades.
It added that even when the law does not prescribe a fixed limitation period, revenue authorities must act within a reasonable time.
The court also emphasised that the revenue divisional officer was correct in holding that the dispute involved complicated questions of title.
Curated by Shiv Shakti Mishra
