The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the mere pendency of a civil suit over property title does not prevent revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers to update revenue records.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi delivered the judgment on July 15, 2026, while allowing Writ Appeal No. 536 of 2025. The Bench also set aside the earlier order of a Single Judge directing restoration of certain names in the revenue records.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned revenue entries relating to about 9 acres and 61 cents of land in Potladurthi Village, YSR Kadapa District.
The revenue records initially carried the names of the writ petitioners. Subsequently, Makam Ramanjaneyulu sought mutation in his favour on the basis of registered sale deeds. The Tahsildar allowed the application on August 4, 2017.
Later, Makam Sumith sought mutation in his name based on a registered gift deed executed by his father. The Tahsildar allowed that request on November 13, 2018, recording that notices had been issued and no objections were received.
The earlier writ proceedings resulted in an order directing restoration of the petitioners' names and keeping the property in the dispute register until the civil suit was decided. Sumith challenged that order before the Division Bench.
Court's Observation
The Bench noted that the 2017 mutation order itself had not been challenged in the writ petition. It also found that there was no pleading or affidavit disputing the Tahsildar's statement that notice had been served before the order was passed.
The Court further clarified the legal effect of a pending civil suit. Referring to Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, it held that the provision gives an aggrieved person a remedy before the civil court but does not stop revenue authorities from exercising their statutory jurisdiction.
The Bench observed that
“the pendency of a civil suit does not operate as a bar” to proceedings under the 1971 Act.
At the same time, the Court stressed that mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes. They neither establish ownership nor confer title and remain subject to the declaration ultimately made by the competent civil court.
Decision
The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and set aside the Single Judge's order dated February 12, 2025.
The Court also left it open to the writ petitioners to pursue any alternative statutory remedy available to them against the mutation orders before the appropriate forum.
It directed that any such proceedings be decided according to law and without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
No order as to costs was made.
Case Details:
Case Title: Makam Sumith v. Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 536 of 2025
Judge: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi
Decision Date: July 15, 2026
