Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 212 (TS)

M. Jayakrishna v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2026-01-30

G.M.MOHIUDDIN

body2026
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. 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 Survey Records contradict such claim, and the land has been in continuous agricultural and lawful use for decades, without submergence or obstruction to water flow. iv. That the appellate order of respondent No.1 – Revenue Divisional Officer is non-speaking and mechanical, demonstrating total non-application of mind. Relevant documentary evidence and binding judicial precedents were ignored, rendering the order unsustainable. v. That the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy, as the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, contrary to settled law, and raise pure questions of law concerning interpretation and evidentiary value of revenue records. vi. That reliance placed on R.Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka , , (1995) 6 SCC 309 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that long and uninterrupted possession raises a presumption of title and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3232 of 2006 in support of his claim. vii. That there is no evidence of encroachment by the petitioner. Possession flows from lawful inheritance and recorded rights. In the absence of proof of unauthorized occupation; proceedings under the 1905 Act, are wholly misconceived. Submissions of the respondents 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue made the following submissions: i. That the subject land is classified as “Sarkari” in the Sethwar and as “Billa Dhakala” (unassessed waste). Possession flows from lawful inheritance and recorded rights. In the absence of proof of unauthorized occupation; proceedings under the 1905 Act, are wholly misconceived. Submissions of the respondents 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue made the following submissions: i. That the subject land is classified as “Sarkari” in the Sethwar and as “Billa Dhakala” (unassessed waste). It falls within the retaining wall of the Musi River and forms part of the riverbed. Consequently, the land vests in the State under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. ii. That the petitioner’s grandmother was not a pattadar but was merely recorded as a “Shivajiamadar” (encroacher), indicating unauthorized occupation. Payment of land revenue or existence of revenue entries does not confer title, particularly in respect of Government land. iii. That the town Survey operations conducted under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, attained finality upon publication in the Gazette, wherein the subject land was recorded as Government land. The petitioner or his predecessor did not raise any objection at the relevant stage and is, therefore, estopped from disputing the classification. iv. That the eviction proceedings under the 1905 Act, were initiated strictly in accordance with law, after issuance of due notice and affording opportunity of hearing. The appellate order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is legal, proper and does not warrant interference. v. That the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of revision under Section 12 of the 1905 Act, in addition to the remedy of instituting a civil suit. In view thereof, the present writ petition is not maintainable. vi. That the subject land forms part of the riverbed of the Musi river. Any occupation or construction thereon is illegal and poses serious environmental and public safety risks, including obstruction to natural water flow and increased flood vulnerability. vii. That in W.P.No.680 of 2012, the petitioner had furnished an undertaking before this Court not to change the nature of the subject land. It is alleged that the petitioner violated the said undertaking by continuing unauthorized use and alteration of the land, disentitling him to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged by both the learned counsel and perused the material on record. Analysis and findings 11. It is alleged that the petitioner violated the said undertaking by continuing unauthorized use and alteration of the land, disentitling him to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged by both the learned counsel and perused the material on record. Analysis and findings 11. It is pertinent to note that the present writ petition raises substantial questions touching upon the jurisdiction and legality of the proceedings initiated under the 1905 Act. The impugned orders are assailed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, non-application of mind, and misreading of material revenue records. It is well settled law that where the action of statutory authorities is ex facie arbitrary, without jurisdiction, or in breach of natural justice, this Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the objection raised by the respondents regarding the availability of an alternative remedy is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah , (2010) 2 SCC 461 while reiterating the view taken in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao , (1982) 2 SCC 134 has held that the proceedings under the 1905 Act are summary in nature and can be invoked only when the land is admittedly Government land and the occupation is prima facie unauthorized. Where serious disputes relating to title and long-standing possession arise, the authorities under the 1905 Act lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such issues. In the present case, the very foundation for invoking the provisions of the 1905 Act is absent, as the petitioners’ possession is supported by revenue records spanning several decades 13. The petitioners have placed on record a series of revenue documents dating back to 1954-55, which initially show the name of Mali Muthamma and, thereafter, that of the petitioner. These records, including entries in Pahanis, Ryotwari Passbooks, and the Town Survey Register, although disputed by the respondents, establish a prima facie case of lawful possession, if not title. The respondents’ reliance on the Sethwar and the classification of the land as “Billa Dhakala” cannot be treated as conclusive, particularly when subsequent revenue records demonstrate continuous possession by the petitioner’s family along with regular payment of revenue. 14. The respondents’ reliance on the Sethwar and the classification of the land as “Billa Dhakala” cannot be treated as conclusive, particularly when subsequent revenue records demonstrate continuous possession by the petitioner’s family along with regular payment of revenue. 14. Though revenue records do not by themselves confer title, they carry a statutory presumption of possession and enjoyment, which gains significance when such entries remain unchallenged over a long period. When coupled with long, continuous and uninterrupted possession, they constitute strong evidence of lawful entitlement, unless rebutted by the State by establishing a superior title. In the present case, the respondents have failed to place any material to show that the land was ever assigned, allotted, or declared as Government property prior to the petitioner’s family coming into possession. A bare and antiquated Sethwar classification, in the absence of supporting contemporaneous evidence, cannot prevail over decades of recognized and recorded possession. 15. On perusal of the record, it indicates that the respondents’ assertion that the land forms part of the Musi riverbed is not supported by any contemporary survey or expert report. The Town Survey records, in fact, show the land as dry and under occupation. The land does not fall within the active flood zone, nor is there any finding that the petitioner’s occupation has caused environmental harm or obstructed the natural flow of water. The respondents’ vague reference to the “Musi riverbed” appears to be a belated and unfounded justification for eviction. 16. It is also to be noted that the appellate order passed by the RDO is cryptic and fails to consider the documents and precedents placed before it by the petitioner. It merely reiterates the findings of the MRO without any independent analysis. Such omission amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice and renders the order legally untenable. In this regard, the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind. 17. In W.P.No.3232 of 2006, this Court did not hold that the land was Government property; it merely directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, which he duly did. Similarly, the observations in W.P.No.680 of 2012 were made in the context of an undertaking given by the petitioner regarding temporary structures and did not constitute a determination of title. 18. The petitioner and his legal heirs have been in uninterrupted possession of land for over seven decades, having built their lives around it. Similarly, the observations in W.P.No.680 of 2012 were made in the context of an undertaking given by the petitioner regarding temporary structures and did not constitute a determination of title. 18. The petitioner and his legal heirs have been in uninterrupted possession of land for over seven decades, having built their lives around it. An attempt by the State to evict them after such prolonged period, without compelling evidence of superior title, is inequitable and contrary to the principles of substantive justice. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have established a strong prima facie case of lawful possession, supported by revenue records. The respondents have failed to prove that the land in question is “Government land” or that the petitioner constitutes an “encroacher” within the meaning of the 1905 Act. The impugned orders dated 15.02.2006 and 10.09.2013 are arbitrary, legally unsustainable and violative of the petitioner’s rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 15.02.2006 and 10.09.2013 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land except by due process of law and in accordance with a competent adjudication by a civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.