The Supreme Court has held that entries in revenue records such as Pahanies, Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi and mutation records do not confer title over land and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of ownership, especially in disputes involving forest land.
The bench Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed the civil appeal filed by private claimants seeking exclusion of 600 acres of land from a proposed reserve forest in present-day Telangana.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti in the case of Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao & Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
The dispute related to land situated in Survey No. 81 of Kalvalanagaram Village, presently located in Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. A Gazette Notification dated February 6, 1950 had proposed inclusion of 787 acres of land, including the disputed 600 acres, as reserve forest under the Hyderabad Forest laws.
The appellants claimed that pattas had been granted in favour of their predecessors during the Nizam era in 1931-32 and argued that the land was private patta land which could not be treated as forest land. They challenged the 2003 order of the Joint Collector, Khammam, which had rejected their plea for exclusion of the land from the proposed reserve forest.
Before the authorities, the claimants relied upon various land ceiling tribunal proceedings, pahanies, revenue receipts, mutation petitions, maps, and Faisal Patti copies to establish ownership.
The Joint Collector had rejected the claim holding that the appellants failed to produce original patta certificates or any foundational title documents. The authority also observed that the land had remained uncultivated and covered by forest growth for decades and that the claimants failed to prove continuous possession.
A Single Judge of the High Court had earlier allowed the writ petition and declared the proceedings for reserving the land as forest to be ultra vires and non est. The Single Judge accepted the appellants’ claim that pattas were granted in 1933 and held that the 1950 notification had been issued under a repealed Hyderabad Forest Act.
However, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s decision and ruled that merely because a notification referred to an earlier enactment, it would not automatically become invalid if it was otherwise consistent with the prevailing law. The Division Bench also found that the appellants had failed to produce any original pattas or legally admissible title documents.
Upholding the Division Bench judgment, the Supreme Court extensively discussed the legal position concerning revenue entries and mutation records. The Court reiterated that revenue records are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and do not create or extinguish title.
The Court observed that mutation entries merely enable payment of land revenue and cannot by themselves establish ownership rights. It further noted that even acceptance of taxes or bank loans based on such entries does not prevent the State from disputing ownership claims.
The Bench also cautioned that revenue records are susceptible to manipulation and unauthorised entries. It observed that stray entries recorded for isolated years cannot prevail over long-standing consistent entries showing the land as forest.
Examining the documents relied upon by the appellants, the Court found that the Pahanies themselves described Survey No. 81 as “Jungle”, while names of private individuals were inserted in some columns without supporting title documents or lawful mutation orders.
The Supreme Court emphasised that writ proceedings under Article 226 are not the proper forum for adjudicating disputed questions of title involving detailed factual examination. Relying on earlier precedents, the Bench held that such disputes must ordinarily be resolved through properly constituted civil proceedings and not by exercising writ jurisdiction.
The Court further held that the Single Judge had exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review by effectively declaring title in favour of the appellants while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. According to the Bench, certiorari jurisdiction is confined to issues such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or error apparent on the face of record.
Rejecting the plea to remand the matter for fresh adjudication before another authority or court, the Supreme Court observed that the litigation had already continued for nearly 75 years and there were no surviving issues warranting further prolongation of the dispute.
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and upheld the proposed reserve forest proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao & Ors. Versus The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1119-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 27590 Of 2025
Date: 06/05/2026
