a bench of justice R Raghunandan Rao was hearing a petition related to an agricultural land dispute in Julakaluva village of Singanamala mandal in Ananthapuramu district.
“It must be considered that the tax authorities could not have accommodated 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 said on January 2.
Background
The dispute pertains to agricultural land situated in Julakaluva village of Singanamala Mandal in Ananthapuramu district.
The petitioners’ family claimed ownership of approximately 43 acres of land, claiming that they were acquired through sale deeds registered between 1939 and 1951.
According to the petitioners, their father’s name appeared in tax records from the 1940s and, after a family partition, their names changed.
Pattadar’s passbooks and land titles were issued in his favor in 1988, and the family continued in possession without any objection for several decades.
Story continues below this ad.
In 2014, a private respondent approached the tahsildar (an official of the revenue department) seeking issuance of pattadar passbooks and mutation of his name over part of the same land, claiming rights under a family partition deed executed that year.
The tahsildar rejected the request, pointing out that the land was already registered in the name of the existing pattadars.
This decision was confirmed by the revenue divisional officer, who observed that the dispute involved complicated questions of title that were best left to a civil court.
However, in September 2017, the joint collector set aside these orders and ordered verification of old sale deeds and changes in revenue records, prompting the petitioners to approach the high court.
Story continues below this ad.
Arguments
The petitioners, represented by advocate MRS Srinivas, argued that no claim had been made on the land for over 70 years and that reopening of revenue receipts settled after such a long delay was barred by the principles of delay and laches.
They held that the tax authorities could not decide disputed title issues, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
They also relied on previous judicial precedents holding that even where no specific limitation period is prescribed, review powers must be exercised within a reasonable time.
Observations
Holding that the joint collector’s order of 2017 was “arbitrary and without jurisdiction”, Justice Rao admitted the writ petition and dismissed it.
Story continues below this ad.
He added that long-standing revenues should not be altered.
The court rejected the joint collector’s reasoning and found that considering such a late claim was legally impermissible.
As per the Andhra Pradesh Land Rights Act and the Pattadar Pass Books, such disputes have to be resolved through a civil suit and revenue authorities cannot take on the role of a civil court, the court added.
Noting that the claim was filed 71 years after the original entries or at least 26 years after the pattadar passbooks were issued, the judge observed that courts have consistently held that review powers, even when not subject to a fixed limitation period, must be exercised within a reasonable time.
Story continues below this ad.
Allowing authorities to reopen records of settled lands after decades would create uncertainty and seriously affect property rights, the court said.
The court held that the powers of review are not unlimited and cannot be used to alter land records that have remained intact for decades.
He added that even when the law does not prescribe a fixed limitation period, the tax authorities must act within a reasonable period of time.
The court also emphasized that the revenue divisional officer was correct in holding that the dispute involved complicated questions of title.