Section 5(5) ROR Act | Revenue Authorities Cannot Treat Plain Representation As Statutory Appeal Nor Adjudicate Competing Wills: Telangana High Court

"The power of the Revenue Divisional Officer under the ROR Act, 1971 is appellate, and it arises only on a properly presented appeal under Section 5(5) read with Rule 21, filed in time. A representation, letter or report cannot be treated as an appeal, and if it is so treated, the order passed on it is without jurisdiction." Telangana High Court, in an authoritative ruling, held that revenue authorities exercise strictly circumscribed statutory powers and have no jurisdiction to treat an informal representation as an appeal to reverse mutation entries, nor can they determine complex questions of title arising from competing testamentary wills.

A single bench of Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy observed that revenue records serve merely a fiscal purpose and underscored that "deciding these claims requires, among other things, proof of the execution and attestation of each Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872," which falls squarely within the exclusive domain of a competent civil court.

The petitioner, claiming to be the legally wedded wife and sole heir of a deceased advocate, secured succession and mutation entries in respect of agricultural land in Sy.No.106 admeasuring Ac.13.26 guntas under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The contesting seventh respondent, asserting to be the second wife of the deceased on the strength of an earlier registered will, submitted an informal representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who unilaterally directed the Tahsildar to mutate the subject land in her favour without issuing notice to the petitioner. When the Special Tribunal upheld this reversal under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, the petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.

The primary questions before the court were whether the Revenue Divisional Officer possessed statutory jurisdiction to entertain an informal representation as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971 to overturn mutation entries without notice, and whether revenue authorities or tribunals can adjudicate complex title disputes revolving around competing wills, revocation deeds, and marital status.

High Court Reaffirms Writ Maintainability Against Jurisdictional Excess

Addressing the maintainability objection predicated on the availability of a civil suit, the High Court held that the rule of alternative remedy is a doctrine of self-restraint rather than an absolute jurisdictional bar. Citing the classic formulation of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the bench held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not impede writ jurisdiction where the impugned action constitutes a brazen breach of natural justice or is wholly without jurisdiction.

The bench highlighted that the petitioner had approached the statutory revisional authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, which subsequently stood transferred to the Special Tribunal pursuant to Section 16 of the ROR Act, 2020. Because Section 16(2) attaches finality to the orders of the Special Tribunal, leaving no further statutory appeal, the invocation of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was entirely maintainable to correct jurisdictional errors.

Informal Representations Cannot Subvert Mandatory Appellate Procedures

Examining the scheme of the ROR Act, 1971, the court ruled that appellate power under Section 5(5) read with Rule 21 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 is a creature of statute and can only be invoked through a formally presented appeal accompanied by the prescribed court fees and preferred within limitation. The Revenue Divisional Officer possessed no suo motu or revisional authority akin to that conferred on the District Collector under Section 9 of the Act.

The court reiterated that where a statute mandates that a thing be done in a particular manner, it must be performed in that prescribed manner or not at all. Relying upon settled jurisprudence in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector, Sannepalli Nageswar Rao v. District Collector, and Krishtappa v. Joint Collector, the bench held that treating an administrative representation as a statutory appeal is completely ultra vires.

Violation Of Natural Justice Cannot Be Countered With Another Breach

The bench reprimanded the revenue authorities for canceling the petitioner's mutation entries behind her back, observing that no administrative or quasi-judicial order altering an existing record of rights can be made without affording the recorded person a meaningful opportunity of being heard. The seventh respondent's defence that her own earlier application had been overlooked by the primary authority without notice was outrightly rejected by the bench.

Justice Reddy pointedly observed that one alleged breach of natural justice cannot validate or justify another subsequent violation. The administrative directive issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer dislodged a mutated owner without issuing notice, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and rendering the consequential mutation order passed by the Tahsildar null and void.

Revenue Records Confined To Fiscal Purposes And Cannot Determine Title

Delving deeply into the core question of testamentary disputes, the High Court emphatically ruled that revenue authorities have zero jurisdiction to decide the validity, execution, attestation, or revocation of conflicting registered wills. Referring to the Supreme Court rulings in Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner and Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, the bench highlighted that revenue entries do not create, confer, or extinguish title, serving strictly the fiscal object of land revenue collection.

The court noted that under the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncements in Dhani Ram v. Shiv Singh, Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, and Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, mere registration does not attach an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness to a will. The propounder must strictly prove due execution and attestation by examining attesting witnesses under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Special Tribunal Acted Beyond Jurisdiction In Deciding Will Revocation

The High Court observed that the Special Tribunal gravely erred by entering into the validity and revocation of the competing wills under Sections 62 and 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, instead of deciding the threshold issue of the Revenue Divisional Officer's lack of jurisdiction. The court observed that the legal marital status of the parties and the rights of succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 require substantive adjudication through oral and documentary evidence before a civil court.

Setting aside the orders of the Special Tribunal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Tahsildar, the bench directed the restoration of the revenue entries in favour of the petitioner as they stood prior to the illegal reversal. The court explicitly clarified that such restoration does not constitute an adjudication of title, granting full liberty to the contesting party to seek adjudication before a competent civil court or invoke remedies under the newly enacted Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025.

In conclusion, the High Court firmly established that revenue authorities cannot bypass statutory appellate channels or usurp the adjudicatory domain of civil courts over disputed wills, title, and marital succession. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, quashing all impugned revenue proceedings and restoring the prior record of rights subject to pending civil adjudications.

Date of Decision: 12.10.2026