Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Revenue Order Allowing Land Record Changes After 71 Years
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that land revenue records cannot be reopened on the basis of a claim raised after a delay of 71 years. The court set aside a 2017 order of the Joint Collector that directed changes to long-standing entries. A single-judge bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao said revisional powers are not open-ended. Even where no limitation period is prescribed,...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that land revenue records cannot be reopened on the basis of a claim raised after a delay of 71 years. The court set aside a 2017 order of the Joint Collector that directed changes to long-standing entries.
A single-judge bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao said revisional powers are not open-ended. Even where no limitation period is prescribed, authorities must act within a reasonable time.
Quoting Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs.Chilla Ramarao & Ors, the court said that such revisional power has to be exercised within a reasonable time.
The case involved agricultural land in Julakaluva Village in Ananthapuramu district. The petitioners are legal heirs of T. Bali Reddy.
They said their father bought the land through registered sale deeds between 1939 and 1951. Revenue records showed possession from at least 1943 onwards. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour in 1988 after a family partition. These entries were not challenged for decades.
In 2014, another claimant approached revenue authorities seeking mutation of the land records.
The claim was based on 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.The Revenue Divisional Officer upheld the rejection and said the dispute involved complicated questions of fact that had to be decided by a civil court. Despite this, the Joint Collector in 2017 set aside the earlier orders and directed verification of documents and changes to the land records.
Before the High Court, the petitioners said the claim was hopelessly delayed and that revenue authorities could not decide title issues. The rival claimant argued there was no delay since the partition deed was executed only in 2014, and said the Joint Collector had only ordered record correction.
The court rejected this argument.It noted that the claim was raised after 71 years if counted from 1943. Even if counted from 1988, the delay was 26 years.
The bench said, “Applying the aforesaid principles, 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.”
The court also pointed out that anyone aggrieved by revenue entries must approach a civil court under Section 8(2) of the Act.
Criticising the attempt to bypass this remedy, it said, “The 6th respondent having deliberately chosen to approach the revenue authorities, under the provisions of the Act, 1971, instead of attempting to demonstrate his title and possession over the land, cannot now seek relief under the provisions of the Act, 1971”
Holding that the Joint Collector acted without jurisdiction, the High Court set aside the order.
Case Title: T Bali Reddy (Died) & Ors v. Prl Secretary Revenue Dept & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 3
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 34878 of 2017
For Petitioner: Advocate M.R.S. Srinivas
For Respondent: Advocate Karnam Ramesh For Respondent No. 6; GP for Revenue (AP)