Pendency Of Civil Suit Does Not Bar Mutation Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the mere pendency of a civil suit relating to title does not bar revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers to conduct mutation proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.In doing so, the Court clarified that while the Civil Court's declaration of title would ultimately govern the...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the mere pendency of a civil suit relating to title does not bar revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers to conduct mutation proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
In doing so, the Court clarified that while the Civil Court's declaration of title would ultimately govern the revenue entries, a pending title suit by itself does not prevent revenue authorities from exercising jurisdiction under the 1971 Act.
For context, Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 provides a remedy to a person aggrieved by an entry in the Record of Rights to approach the competent Civil Court for a declaration of title. The revenue entry is thereafter required to be amended in accordance with the Civil Court's declaration. However, the provision does not bar revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers during the pendency of the suit.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed:
“We are of the view that the pendency of a civil suit does not operate as a bar to proceedings under the Act, 1971. If any person has a bona fide dispute regarding title to the property, it is always open to such person to seek appropriate relief before the competent Civil Court; however, the pendency of the suit proceedings, by itself, does not prohibit the revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers and jurisdictions under the Act, 1971.”
The dispute concerned revenue entries for land in Potladurthi Village, YSR Kadapa District. Initially, the writ petitioners' names were recorded in the revenue records.
Later, the father of the present appellant, who was a respondent in the writ petition, sought mutation of the land in his favour based on registered sale deeds. The Tahsildar allowed the request and mutated the entries in his favour.
The father subsequently gifted the land to the appellant through a registered gift deed. On this basis, the appellant sought mutation of his name, which the Tahsildar allowed.
The writ petitioners challenged the mutation before the High Court.
The Single Judge directed the Tahsildar to restore their names in the revenue records and keep the property in the dispute register until the pending civil suit was decided. The appellant, whose mutation was affected by this order, challenged it before the Division Bench.
The appellant contended that the earlier mutation in favour of his father was never challenged. The writ petition challenged only the subsequent mutation in the appellant's favour. Therefore, even if the latter were set aside, the earlier mutation would continue, leaving no basis to restore the writ petitioners' names. He also pointed out that the earlier order recorded that notice was served on the writ petitioners, who neither appeared nor filed objections.
The writ petitioners, however, contended that they were unaware of the earlier mutation order and argued that the pendency of the civil suit prevented the Tahsildar from exercising jurisdiction under Section 8(2) of the Act.
The High Court rejected this contention. It noted that the earlier mutation order was not under challenge in the writ petition and that there was no pleading or affidavit disputing the issuance or service of notice. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to doubt the recital in the order that notice had been served.
The Court further explained that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and that revenue entries “neither prove the title nor do they confer any title, but are only for fiscal purposes.” Such entries remain subject to the declaration of title by the Civil Court.
It further held that “the pendency of a civil suit does not operate as a bar to proceedings under the Act, 1971” and that such pendency, by itself, does not prohibit the revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers under the Act.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the Single Judge's order.
It left it open to the writ petitioners to pursue any statutory remedy available against the mutation orders.
Case Title: Makam Sumith v. Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy & Others
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 536 of 2025
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Siva Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP for Revenue and Sodum Anvesha