Decree Can’t Sleep for 18 Years and Wake Up to Claim Land: Telangana High Court Cancels Mutation Based on 1995 Partition Decree

“Law Helps the Vigilant, Not the Sleepy — You Can't Hold a Decree in Cold Storage and Ambush Buyers After Decades,” In a major blow to late-stage land claimants trying to revive decades-old civil decrees, the Telangana High Court on April 2, 2025, quashed a mutation order based on a 1995 partition decree, slamming revenue authorities for blindly granting land mutation in 2015 without verifying its legal enforceability. Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, in a judgment that could reshape how revenue officials handle old court decrees, held that mutation based on such time-barred decrees is wholly unsustainable in law.

The Court, allowing a writ petition filed by Andem Sudhakar Reddy and another, directed that the name of the fourth respondent be deleted from revenue records, and fresh Pattadar Passbooks be issued to the petitioners, who had bought the land in 2004.

“This decree expired in 2007 — it can’t be revived in 2013 by filing a casual mutation request. That’s not legal procedure, that’s judicial ambush.”

The land in question had been purchased by the petitioners in 2004 from the recorded pattadar. But in 2015, after nearly two decades, a mutation was sanctioned in favour of another claimant, based on a final decree passed in a partition suit in 1995.

The High Court minced no words while criticising the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar: “The authorities exercised their powers in ignorance of limitation laws. They acted mechanically on the basis of a decree that was never executed within time. Such mutation is illegal.”

“You can’t say your stamp paper was delayed and expect the limitation clock to stop — law doesn’t wait for your convenience.”

The respondent tried to argue that since stamp duty for the decree engrossment was paid in 2013, the limitation should be calculated from that date. But the Court squarely rejected this excuse:

“It is well settled that the limitation for execution of a decree begins from the date of decree, not from the date of engrossment or convenience of the party.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Chiranji Lal v. Hari Das, the Court observed that the right to enforce the 1995 decree lapsed in 2007, after completion of the 12-year limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act.

“A decree cannot lie dormant for 18 years and then be used to topple settled titles — that would shake the foundation of property law.”

The Court further held that the mutation claim was not filed within 90 days as required under Section 4 of the ROR Act, 1971, nor was there any acceptable explanation for the 18-year delay.

“Even if the decree was valid in 1995, its enforcement had a shelf life. That shelf life expired long ago. What was brought before the Tahsildar in 2015 was a dead document.”

“Revenue records must reflect lawful ownership, not ancestral claims revived after decades of slumber.”

Slamming the invocation of Section 58B of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, the Court said: “The authorities applied a section dealing with occupancy rights, not mutation of partition decrees. This shows complete non-application of mind.”

“The petitioners purchased the land in 2004 and were enjoying it peacefully. They cannot be divested on the strength of a decree that the claimants themselves failed to act upon for 18 years.”

With this, the Court allowed the writ petition in full, quashed the mutation and appellate orders, and ordered the restoration of the petitioners’ names in the land records.

Date of decision:  April 2, 2025