In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of finality in land records, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to reopen a 71-year-old land dispute, setting aside a 2017 order by a joint collector. The court emphasized that allowing authorities to revisit settled records after decades would create widespread uncertainty and severely undermine property rights.
Court Halts Decades-Old Land Title Challenge
A bench led by Justice R Raghunandan Rao delivered the verdict on January 2, 2026, while hearing a petition concerning a dispute over agricultural land in Julakaluva village of Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu district. The core issue revolved around approximately 43 acres of land.
The petitioners, represented by advocate MRS Srinivas, asserted their family's ownership through registered sale deeds executed between 1939 and 1951. They argued that their father's name was entered in revenue records from the 1940s, and following a family partition, their names were duly mutated. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were officially issued in their favour in 1988, and the family enjoyed uninterrupted possession for decades without any challenge.
The Belated Claim and Legal Journey
The tranquility was disrupted in 2014 when a private respondent approached the tahsildar, seeking mutation and passbooks for a part of the same land based on a family partition deed executed that very year. The tahsildar rejected this application, noting the land was already recorded in the names of existing pattadars. This decision was later upheld by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who correctly pointed out that the dispute involved complicated questions of title best adjudicated by a civil court.
However, in a surprising turn in September 2017, the Joint Collector set aside the earlier orders. The official directed a verification of old sale deeds and potential changes to the revenue records, prompting the original landowners to approach the High Court for relief.
High Court's Firm Stand on Finality and Jurisdiction
Justice Raghunandan Rao, in a clear and firm judgment, declared the Joint Collector's 2017 order as "arbitrary and without jurisdiction." The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order, directing that the long-standing revenue entries must not be disturbed.
The bench made several critical observations:
First, on the inordinate delay: The court noted that the claim was raised either 71 years after the original entries (from 1943) or at least 26 years after the pattadar passbooks were issued in 1988. It held that revisional powers, even when no specific limitation period is prescribed, must be exercised within a reasonable time. Entertaining a claim after such an extensive delay is legally impermissible.
Second, on the creation of uncertainty: The judgment stated that permitting authorities to reopen settled land records after many decades would generate instability and seriously affect the sanctity of property rights, which form the bedrock of civil society.
Third, on the limits of revenue authority: The court reinforced that under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, complicated questions of title must be resolved through a civil suit. Revenue authorities cannot assume the role of a civil court to decide such disputed claims.
The ruling reinforces judicial precedent that aims to prevent the unsettling of land records that have remained unchallenged for generations, thereby protecting owners from belated and disruptive claims.
