Mere Past Possession is Insufficient – Plaintiff Must Establish Possession on the Date of Suit For Injunction: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Mere Past Possession is Not Enough – Injunction Suit Without Challenging Patta Cancellation is Legally Untenable - Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the cancellation of a DKT Patta and ruled that a suit for permanent injunction without first challenging the patta cancellation is not legally maintainable.

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, delivering the judgment, observed, “A person seeking an injunction must prove legal possession on the date of the suit. Mere past possession or old revenue receipts do not create an enforceable right.”

Rejecting the plaintiff’s claim that his long-standing possession entitled him to protection from dispossession, the Court ruled, “An injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff has already lost legal possession due to a validly executed cancellation order. Courts cannot overlook the consequences of a government action unless its legality is directly challenged.”

The plaintiff, S.J. Kalappa Modaliar, claimed to have been in continuous possession of 1.25 acres of land in Netham Kandiga, Nagari Taluk, granted to him under a DKT Patta in 1962. Asserting his right to the land, he filed a suit for permanent injunction in 1987, seeking to prevent the government from disturbing his possession.

The District Collector, Chittoor, and revenue authorities, however, contended that the patta had been legally canceled in 1983 because the plaintiff had failed to cultivate the land as required under assignment conditions and was not residing in the assigned village. The government had reallocated the land to 55 Harijana families for house sites, making his claim untenable.

The plaintiff never challenged the patta cancellation in any legal forum but instead attempted to secure an injunction on the sole ground of past possession. The Trial Court ruled in his favor, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, leading to this Second Appeal.

“Injunction Suit Without Challenging Patta Cancellation is Not Maintainable”
The plaintiff sought an injunction without contesting the cancellation order, arguing that his continued possession was sufficient to restrain the government from evicting him. The Court firmly rejected this contention, stating, “Once an assignment is canceled, the assignee cannot claim an independent right to possession. Without challenging the cancellation, no injunction can be granted.”

Emphasizing the importance of legal title in claiming possession, the Court observed, “Possession without a valid legal foundation cannot be protected by an injunction. The law does not aid a person who ignores legal remedies and later claims protection through an injunction suit.”

The Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s ruling that the proper course of action would have been to challenge the patta cancellation, rather than attempting to enforce a right that no longer existed.

“Mere Past Possession is Not Sufficient – Plaintiff Must Prove Possession at the Time of Suit”
The plaintiff relied on kist receipts from 1962 to 1980 to prove his possession. The Court, however, found no evidence of possession beyond 1980, ruling, “Possession must be established as on the date of the suit. Mere past possession, however long, does not confer an enforceable right when official revenue records indicate otherwise.”

Observing that the plaintiff had failed to pay kist (land tax) after 1980, the Court concluded, “If the plaintiff had remained in possession, he would have continued making kist payments. His failure to do so is a strong indication that he had already lost possession well before filing the suit.”

The plaintiff argued that his possession was disrupted due to the pending litigation. The Court rejected this explanation, stating, “A litigant cannot claim possession on the basis of inaction. If he truly possessed the land, he would have defended his rights at the time of cancellation, not years later through an injunction suit.”

“Substituted Service of Cancellation Notice Was Legally Justified”
The plaintiff challenged the validity of the patta cancellation, arguing that substituted service of notice was impermissible under Board Standing Orders. He contended that as personal service was not effected, the entire cancellation process stood vitiated.

The Court dismissed this argument, stating, “When a person’s whereabouts are unknown, authorities have the right to serve notice through substituted service. The plaintiff was unavailable for personal service, and the government took all reasonable steps to notify him.”

The Court further held that the plaintiff had knowledge of the cancellation proceedings but failed to act, observing, “The record clearly establishes that the plaintiff was aware of the cancellation but chose not to challenge it at the appropriate time. He cannot now claim ignorance to undermine the cancellation order.”

“Revenue Authorities Had the Right to Cancel the Patta Due to Non-Compliance”
The plaintiff argued that the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) lacked authority to cancel the assignment after 20 years, citing Board Standing Order No. 15 and the case 1991 (1) ALT 617.

The Court firmly rejected this contention, stating, “An assignment is granted for agricultural purposes, and the assignee is bound to cultivate the land. If he fails to do so, the government has every right to resume the land, even after 20 years.”

The Court clarified that DKT pattas are conditional grants, not absolute ownership titles, observing, “A person who violates assignment conditions cannot later claim absolute ownership over government land. The patta was granted for cultivation, not as a transferable property right.”

The Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s ruling that the plaintiff had failed to reside in the village and did not cultivate the land, thereby violating the fundamental conditions of assignment.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

Concluding that the plaintiff had neither legal title nor possession on the date of the suit, the Court held, “An injunction cannot be sought to retain possession when the government has lawfully resumed the land due to the assignee’s failure to comply with assignment conditions.”

The Court further ruled, “The findings of the First Appellate Court are in accordance with legal principles and do not warrant interference. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the legal consequences of patta cancellation and erred in granting an injunction.”

The judgment and decree dated 07.12.1999 of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, in A.S. No. 78 of 1990, was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

The Court reaffirmed that an injunction cannot be granted to protect a possession that lacks legal backing. Mere past possession does not establish a right to an injunction if revenue records and government actions indicate otherwise. A plaintiff must prove possession on the date of the suit, and where a patta has been canceled, the proper legal recourse is to challenge the cancellation order rather than filing an injunction suit.

Emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention in government land matters, the Court ruled that once an assignment is canceled for valid reasons, civil courts cannot override government orders unless illegality is clearly demonstrated.

Date of Judgment: January 30, 2025