Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The District Collector or Joint Collector... possesses explicit, overlapping, yet legally distinct statutory powers when enforcing the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and the Record of Rights Act. While adjudicating matters under the ROR Act, if the authority observes that a particular land alienation violates the restrictive provisions of the POT Act, they are neither required nor expected to remain a passive spectator."

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 3, 2026, held that a Revisional Authority exercising powers under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ROR Act), possesses the competence to direct the initiation of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (POT Act) if an illegal transfer of assigned land comes to its notice. A bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed that such authorities are not "passive spectators" when faced with clear evidence of statutory violations regarding government-assigned lands.

The dispute involved an extent of Ac. 2.94 cents in Survey No. 772-5 of Koduru Village, originally assigned to one Balija Venkataramappa in 1961. Following his death, the petitioner, who was the wife of the original assignee's nephew, obtained Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds (PPBs/TDs) for a portion of the land, claiming title through inheritance and an unregistered sale agreement from 1985. The 6th respondent, the widow of the original assignee, challenged these entries, eventually leading to a revision before the Joint Collector, who directed the Tahsildar to initiate action under the POT Act, 1977, and keep the land in a dispute register.

The primary question before the Court was whether a Joint Collector, acting as a Revisional Authority under Section 9 of the AP ROR Act, 1971, possesses the jurisdiction to direct the initiation of enforcement proceedings under a separate, specialized statute, the AP Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977. The Court also addressed whether such a directive, and the subsequent inclusion of the land in the "dispute register," was legally sustainable and whether prior judicial precedents suggesting otherwise remained valid.

Revisiting Jurisdictional Scope

The Court meticulously analyzed the interplay between the ROR Act and the POT Act. Addressing the petitioner's reliance on previous rulings, the Court clarified that those judgments had been rendered in oversight of Section 5A(3) of the ROR Act, which explicitly mandates that the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) must satisfy themselves that any alienation is not in contravention of the POT Act.

Court Overrules Previous Precedent

The bench emphasized that because the primary authority is statutorily obligated to ensure compliance with the POT Act, the appellate and revisional authorities must necessarily possess the same power. Consequently, the Court held that previous coordinate bench decisions restricting the Joint Collector's power in this regard were per incuriam and could not be cited as binding authority to curb the Revisional Authority’s oversight functions.

"The executive head is fully empowered to take notice of such legal infractions and set the law in motion."

Administrative Authority to Maintain Dispute Registers

The Court further validated the direction to place the subject land in the dispute register. Citing the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration’s (CCLA) circular dated March 19, 2024, the Court noted that Clause (g) explicitly permits the inclusion of land in a dispute register when cases under the AP Assigned Lands (POT) Act are pending. The Joint Collector’s action was found to be in strict accordance with these administrative guidelines.

Nature of Inquiry Proceedings

Addressing the petitioner’s apprehension regarding dispossession, the Court clarified that the issuance of a Form-I notice is a preliminary administrative step rather than a punitive determination. The petitioner is entitled to participate in the inquiry, present evidence, and contest the findings before the Tahsildar. Therefore, the High Court declined to interfere with the Joint Collector's order, viewing it as a move toward legal compliance rather than an exercise of excessive jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the Revisional Authority is legally empowered to bridge the gap between ROR record-keeping and POT Act enforcement. The petitioner was granted liberty to participate in the pending statutory inquiries before the Tahsildar to substantiate her claim of ownership and possession.

Date of Decision: 03 September 2026