Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The Revisional Authority has no jurisdiction to give any declaration with regard to the Will Deed dated 30.04.1961 about the genuineness or otherwise of the same and binding nature of the family settlement deed dated 13.08.1997 in the facts and circumstances of this case." High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a significant ruling dated July 14, 2026, held that revenue authorities and revisional bodies lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate the genuineness of Wills or the binding nature of family settlement deeds while dealing with mutation proceedings.

A single-judge bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan observed that where title disputes involve complex questions regarding the validity of such documents after several decades, the authorities must direct the parties to seek a declaration from a competent Civil Court.

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Joint Collector (2nd Respondent) which had partially allowed a revision petition filed by unofficial respondents (Respondents 5 & 6). The respondents sought mutation of lands based on a 1961 Will executed by their maternal grandfather, whereas the petitioner relied on a 1997 family settlement and a 2018 registered partition deed under which mutations had already existed for over two decades. The Revisional Authority had set aside the Tahsildar’s refusal to mutate the respondents' names, leading to the present Writ Petition.

The primary question before the court was whether a Revisional Authority under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, has the jurisdiction to determine the genuineness of a Will or the overriding effect of a family settlement. The court was also called upon to determine whether long-standing revenue mutations can be cancelled by revenue authorities based on contested title documents without a civil court decree.

Revenue Entries Do Not Confer Absolute Title

The court emphasized that mere entries in revenue records do not confer title upon a party, as mutation is only a consequential act following the establishment of title by a competent tribunal or court. Justice B. Krishna Mohan noted that the Revisional Authority erred in prioritizing a 1961 Will—which was being pressed before revenue authorities after four and a half decades—over a family settlement deed and long-standing mutations.

"Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title and once title is established by a competent tribunal, mutation is only a consequential act."

Limitations on Revisional Jurisdiction Under ROR Act

The bench observed that the Revisional Authority exceeded its mandate by attempting to adjudicate the genuineness of the 1961 Will. The court noted that there was no opportunity for the concerned parties to dispute the Will before an appropriate forum or subjected it to a trial to test its validity. The court found that the Revisional Authority ought to have recognized the dispute as purely civil in nature.

Authority Cannot Declare Validity of Contested Documents

The Court highlighted that the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction to declare the Will genuine or to decide that the 1997 family settlement was non-binding. It held that such determinations require a full-fledged trial in a civil court, particularly when the parties had been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares for decades following court-monitored compromises in prior civil suits.

"The Revisional Authority has no jurisdiction to give any declaration with regard to the Will Deed... about the genuineness or otherwise of the same and binding nature of the family settlement deed."

Self-Contradictory Nature of the Impugned Order

The court found the Joint Collector's order to be self-contradictory because it protected the mutations of third-party purchasers who had bought land from the petitioner but ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's own remaining mutations. The bench remarked that if a dispute over title existed, it should have been applied uniformly by directing all parties to the civil court rather than selectively altering mutations.

Applicability of Section 8 and Section 9 of the ROR Act

The Court referred to the statutory scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. It noted that under Section 8 of the Act, if any person is aggrieved by an entry in the Record of Rights, their remedy lies in a suit for declaration before a Civil Court. The Revisional Authority under Section 9 should not bypass this judicial requirement when title is seriously clouded by competing claims.

"The unofficial respondents are directed to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration and recovery of possession... subject to the outcome of the same, they can approach the Revenue Authorities concerned afresh."

Final Directions and Setting Aside of Mutation Cancellation

The High Court ultimately set aside the Revisional Authority’s order dated December 29, 2025. It upheld the initial endorsement of the Tahsildar which had rejected the respondents' claims due to the passage of time. The court ordered a status quo to be maintained regarding the mutations and directed the unofficial respondents to approach a civil court to establish their title based on the 1961 Will.

The Court concluded that revenue authorities must exercise restraint when faced with complex title disputes involving old Wills and family settlements. By allowing the Writ Petition, the Court reinforced the principle that the Record of Rights must follow the civil title, and revenue officers cannot substitute themselves for Civil Judges in determining the validity of testamentary or settlement documents.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2026