-
by sayum
31 December 2025 6:41 AM
“Revenue records cannot override registered sale deeds and judicial decrees – Only a competent court can declare title”, High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C. Venkata Jyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (W.P. No. 6835 of 2023) delivered a significant judgment under Article 226 of the Constitution, setting aside the memo issued by the Endowments Department that included private land in the prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that it belonged to a temple.
Justice D. Ramesh, presiding over the case, held that such inclusion, based solely on revenue records and administrative entries under the Endowments Act, without any civil court declaration, was illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of constitutional property rights under Article 300-A.
“Right to Property Cannot Be Defeated by Mere Revenue Entries” – HC Upholds Court Auction Title Dating Back to 1880
The Court began its judgment by observing that "revenue records are not documents of title and have only presumptive evidentiary value", and further declared that the long, unchallenged chain of registered title deeds, beginning from a court auction sale of 1880, could not be invalidated by unilateral departmental communications or administrative presumptions.
The land in question—Ac.6.00 cents in Sy.No.608/2 of Kallur Village, Kurnool District—had been included in the prohibitory list under Section 22A(1)(c) on the basis of a memo issued by the Commissioner of Endowments dated 16.04.2021, alleging temple ownership. The petitioner, however, had purchased the land in 2003 through registered sale deeds tracing back to a decree in O.S. No.8/1877, followed by a registered court auction sale in 1880.
The High Court categorically rejected the state's claim, holding:
“Mere revenue entries or departmental communications cannot justify inclusion under Section 22A(1)(c) without declaration of title by a competent court.”
Long Chain of Title and Repeated Inaction by Temple Authorities
The petitioner, C. Venkata Jyothi, traced her title to a court-ordered auction in 1880 and presented a series of registered transactions over the years—1889, 1904, 1907, 1961, 1982—culminating in her purchase in 2003. These transactions were undisputed by the respondents.
In 1957, the trustee of Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple had approached the Deputy Commissioner under Section 87 of the Endowments Act seeking a certificate declaring the land as temple property. However, the application was dismissed, and the temple was explicitly directed to seek declaration of title through a civil court. They never did.
The 1957 order attained finality, and yet, no civil suit was filed. Despite this, the Endowments Department resurrected its claim in 2021 through an administrative memo, relying solely on revenue entries and Section 43 Register entries.
The Court noted:
“Once the temple failed to secure a certificate under Section 87 and did not approach the civil court, its subsequent indirect assertion of title through the registration department is impermissible.”
The core legal issue was whether the respondents could include the land under Section 22A(1)(c) without judicial determination of title in their favour, especially when the petitioner's chain of title was rooted in court decrees and registered documents.
The Court considered multiple statutory and constitutional provisions:
The Court held that:
“Section 22A(1)(c) cannot be invoked merely on the strength of revenue records or administrative entries. Such inclusion requires declaration of ownership through due judicial process.”
Justice Ramesh emphasized that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser, in longstanding possession, and backed by a clear chain of title. He observed:
“Long and continuous possession coupled with registered sale deeds raises statutory presumption of ownership under Section 113 of BSA, 2023. The burden shifts to the State or Endowment to prove subsisting title.”
The Court also struck down the Section 43(10) inclusion as mala fide, holding that the entry was made during the pendency of contempt proceedings and was evidently an attempt to defeat the earlier orders of this Court in W.P. No. 22043 of 2020.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The judgment relied heavily on several Supreme Court decisions that held revenue records do not confer title:
Justice Ramesh underlined these rulings, stating:
“The government cannot deny title set up by private citizens in presence of successive registered sale deeds unless it produces clear and cogent evidence to the contrary. This burden was not discharged.”
Inclusion Under Section 43(10) Found to Be an Abuse of Process
The Court was particularly critical of the belated inclusion of the land in the Section 43(10) Register:
“The inclusion during the pendency of contempt proceedings is an act of bad faith. It cannot defeat accrued civil rights nor override judicial orders.”
Constitutional Mandate on Property Rights
Finally, the Court underscored the constitutional protection of property under Article 300-A, observing:
“Depriving the petitioner of the right to alienate her property through administrative action, without authority of law, violates Article 300-A.”
The Court held that unless there was a judicial adjudication establishing temple ownership, the petitioner’s civil rights cannot be curtailed through unilateral memos.
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
“The impugned memo Rc.No.M1/COE-19025(35)/21/2019 dated 16.04.2021 is set aside. A Writ of Mandamus is issued directing the deletion of land in Sy.No.608/2 admeasuring Ac.6.00 cents of Kallur Village, Kurnool District from the Section 22A(1)(c) prohibited list.”
No costs were awarded. All pending interlocutory applications were closed.
Date of Decision: 24 December 2025
