“The vested rights in favor of the petitioners cannot be set aside and give rise to miscarriage of justice…exercise of power of review after a long lapse of time is unreasonable and oppressive.” — In a landmark ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court sitting with Justice R. Raghunandan Rao set aside a joint collector’s order seeking to tamper with revenue records after a staggering delay of 71 years, firmly laying down that tax authorities cannot usurp the jurisdiction of civil courts to resolve title disputes.
The Factual Matrix: a 71-year hiatus
The case arose out of a writ petition filed by T. Bali Reddy (now deceased) and others, challenging the order of the Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu. The petitioners claimed ownership of about 43 acres of land in Julakaluva village, purchased by their father through sale deeds registered between 1939 and 1951. Their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were issued as early as 1988.
However, in 2014, 71 years after the initial transactions, the sixth respondent approached the Tahsildars seeking pattadar passbooks based on a family partition deed of 2014. The Tahsildar and subsequently the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejected the claim, with the RDO specifically noting that the matter involved complicated title issues that were more suitable for a civil court.
The overreach of the joint collector
Despite the RDO’s reasoned rejection, the Joint Collector, exercising review jurisdiction, set aside the RDO’s order in 2017. Relying solely on a report submitted by the RDO during the review proceedings, the Joint Collector ordered alteration of the revenue entries. The High Court found this intervention to be legally unsustainable and noted that the joint collector had effectively attempted to decide the title on the basis of an administrative report, bypassing the judicial process.
“The tax authorities could not have accepted any application, after a period of 71 years if 1943 is taken into account or more than 26 years if the year 1988 is taken into account.”
Doctrine of reasonable time and established rights
Justice Raghunandan Rao relied heavily on the doctrine of reasonable time. Citing the Division Bench judgment in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Chilla Ramarao and the Supreme Court judgment in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao, the Court reiterated that even when no specific limitation is prescribed on the exercise of revisional powers, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable time.
The Court observed that admitting a claim after seven decades disturbs established rights and violates the rule of law. Entries in the Register of Rights have significant probative value, and allowing them to be challenged after such an inordinate delay would lead to chaos and uncertainty in immovable property rights.
Tax authorities versus jurisdiction of civil courts
The Court harshly criticized the competence of the tax authorities. He highlighted that under section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Pattadar Land Rights and Pass Books Act, 1971, the remedy for a person aggrieved by an entry denying his title is to file a suit for declaration before a competent civil court.
“The sixth respondent, having deliberately chosen to approach the tax authorities… instead of attempting to prove his title and possession of the land, is now unable to seek relief under the provisions of the 1971 Act.”
The Court held that when the RDO had already identified the existence of complicated questions of fact and title, the tax machinery should have ceased its interference. In attempting to resolve a title dispute through revenue entries, the joint collector acted without jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the sixth defendant’s attempt to circumvent the Civil Court by approaching the tax authorities was inadmissible.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Joint Collector dated 19.09.2017 as arbitrary and void. The Court affirmed that long-standing revenues cannot be destabilized by obsolete claims and that title disputes remain the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts.
Decision Date: 02/01/2026
