Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of AP: Title is Not Proved by Revenue Entries; Title Claims are Investigated by Civil Courts, Not by High Courts

The mere acceptance of municipal or agricultural taxes, or the granting of a bank loan based on these records, does not stop the State from challenging the ownership of the land.

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

In Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.), 2026 INSC 450, the Supreme Court of India, held to the following effect:

  • The law is well settled that the claim to title is not proved through Revenue entries.
  • In a Writ of Certiorari, the High Court cannot declare the title of the lands.
  • The High Courts (under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) are not the appropriate forum for resolving serious disputes concerning questions of fact and title to property. It is so held in Sohan Lal v. Union of India,   (1957) 1 SCC 439.
  • The title claims to the property are investigated by the civil courts in a regularly constituted suit, rather than the courts exercising the prerogative to issue writs.
  • Unauthorised entries or mutations may befall in the Revenue Records (Pahanies).

Facts of the Case in a Nutshell

  • The Appellants, on 09.11.1990, moved the Joint Collector for the exclusion of Subject Matter from the proposed declaration as Forest Land/Reserve Forest.
  • The Joint Collector, rejected the claim because the Appellants failed to prove the primary document through which title to the property is claimed by them.
  • The learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the above deficiencies in the quality of documentary evidence, expanded the scope of judicial review, and for all purposes declared the claim of the Appellants as maintainable for the title to the Subject Matter.

Findings

The Apex Court held in para 16 and 17 as under:

  • “16.1 Entries in Revenue Records or Jamabandi serve only a “fiscal purpose”.
  • Their primary function is to enable the person whose name is mutated in the records to pay the land revenue in question.
    • Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; 
    • Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; 
    • Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; 
    • Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223.
  • 16.2 A Revenue Record is not a document of title and does not confer any ownership or title upon the person whose name appears in it.
    • Suraj Bhan. (supra); 
    • Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, (2007) 13 SCC 565; 
    • State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co., (2013) 9 SCC 319; 
    • Jitendra Singh (supra).
  • Further, mutation does not create or extinguish title and has absolutely no presumptive value regarding title.
    • Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., (1997) 7 SCC 137; 
    • Sawarni (supra);
    • Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar. (supra)
  • 16.3 The mere acceptance of municipal or agricultural taxes, or the granting of a bank loan based on these records, does not stop the State from challenging the ownership of the land.
    • Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (supra)
  • 16.4 While they do not prove title, Revenue Records can raise a presumption regarding possession.
    • Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar (supra); 
    • Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (supra)
  • Maintenance and custody of Revenue Records is the exclusive domain of the Patwari, and it is not uncommon that Revenue Records are often tinkered with by him to suit the exigencies.
    • Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349. 
  • 16.5 Stray or solitary entries recorded for a single year do not raise a presumption of rights and cannot be relied upon against a long, consistent course of revenue entries in favour of another party.
    • Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple v. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi, (1973) 2 SCC 261;
    • Salem Municipality. (supra)
  • 16.6 The creation of fabricated records in collusion acts as a camouflage to defeat the legal rights of the actual tiller, and the Government is not bound by them.
    • Baleshwar Tewari v. Sheo Jatan Tiwary, (1997) 5 SCC 112 ; 
    • State of Punjab v. Sadhu Ram, (1997) 9 SCC 544.
  • “17. For the limited purpose of appreciating the case of Appellants, we notice that the two Revenue Records are (i) Faisal Patti for 1342F, and (ii) Vasool Baqi for 1352F. The Pahanie copy of the village for the Faslis 1346-1356, shown in Column No. 3, records Survey No. 81 of Kalvalanagaram as Jungle. At best, the Pahanies, as is evident to a mere perusal, are unauthorised entries or mutations. The law is well settled that, through Revenue entries, the claim to title is not proved. Further, in a Writ of Certiorari, the learned Single Judge declared the title of the Appellants. On perusal of these documents, and appreciating the intrinsic quality deficiency and the contradictory mutation, it is noted that Subject Matter is recorded as “Jungle” (meaning Forest), and the names of private individuals were recorded in one of the columns. These entries are not supported by a patta or an Order lawfully made, authorising mutation as per the extant procedure.

This Court, in Sohan Lal v. Union of India and another, (1957) 1 SCC 439, noted that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not the appropriate forum for resolving serious disputes concerning questions of fact and title to property. Investigating these claims is the proper function of a civil court in a regularly constituted suit, rather than of a court exercising the prerogative to issue writs.”

Read also: ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free 

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Revenue Records, Mutation

Adverse Possession

Land LawsTransfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Leave a Comment