Considering the absence of statutory backing for the guidelines set out by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, for disputes and suits falling outside Section 8(2) of the ROR Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has highlighted that there is a pressing need for the creation of a dispute register in which any dispute between parties over land is recorded.

The Appeal filed before the High Court related to the issue regarding the inclusion of subject lands in a dispute register.

The Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam recommended, “It would be appropriate, if the government were to consider this pressing need and establish a statutory basis for the creation of a dispute register with rules set out for inclusion of dispute register and removal of properties from such a dispute register. We may also observe that such dispute register may be used as a reference point for verification of title and for verification if there is a cloud over the title of the person claiming ownership over the land. It may not be appropriate to insist that properties entered in the dispute register cannot be alienated. Any such stipulation, may result in power being granted to revenue authorities to decide title of the claimant.”

Advocate N Ashwani Kumar represented the Appellant while Government Pleader represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Appellant, in this case, had filed an Original Suit against the fifth respondent, before the Principal District Judge, Nellore, for partition of the land situated in various survey numbers of Brahmanakraka Village. In the said suit, an injunction restraining alienation of the suit schedule property was issued. The appellant approached the High Court with the plea that the respondents had executed nominal sale deeds in favour of respondents 7 to 11, at the instigation and under the guidance of respondent No.6, for the purposes of depriving the claims, of the appellant, over the said land.

The appellant also contended that his wife had filed a Petition to stop the 6th respondent from evicting the petitioner and his wife, from the residential house occupied by them, on the basis of a sale deed executed by the fifth respondent. The appellant had also approached the District Collector and the Tahsildar to place the property in question, in the dispute register and accordingly, the same was done. However, the Tahsildar, at the instance of the 6th respondent, had removed the said lands from the dispute register.

Placing reliance upon the written instructions of the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue stating that there was no direction from any competent authority, to keep the subject lands in a dispute register and that the subject lands were never included in the dispute register, the Single Judge held that the apprehension of the appellant was misplaced. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellant approached the High Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal.

Arguments

The primary ground of appeal by the appellant was that the Tahsildar had informed the appellant that the lands were included in the dispute register. The Appellant had also produced the information obtained by him, under the Right to Information Act, showing that certain digital signatures, made in relation to the land in question, had been revoked.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the only provision that could be applied would be Rule 32 of the ROR Rules, which requires the details of suits filed under Section 8 (2) of the ROR Act to be included, in a register maintained for this purpose. “This would mean that the above guidelines, would not apply to suits which fall outside the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. In the present case, the suit in question is a suit for partition and does not, in any manner, falls under the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. Consequently, there would be no question of including the land, which is sought to be partitioned, in the dispute register”, the Bench said.

The Bench made it clear that the guidelines of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration cannot result in all kinds of suits being entered into the dispute register maintained under Rule 32 of the ROR Rule.

The High Court also noted that there is an absence of statutory backing for the guidelines set out by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, for disputes and suits falling outside Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. The Bench thus recommended the creation of a dispute register in which any dispute between parties over land, is recorded, to protect innocent third parties, purchasing such land, from being dragged into such litigation or by virtue of accepting such property as security for any loans that may be advanced.

Finding no merit in the Appeal, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Medarametla Venkata Sesha Reddy v. The State Of A.P and Others (Case No.: WRIT APPEAL NO: 817/2024)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate N Ashwani Kumar

Respondents: GP for Home, GP for Revenue, Advocate Nimmagadda Revathi

Click here to read/download Order


Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice R. Raghunandan RaoJustice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.