Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao & Ors. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Background
In 1950, the government proposed to notify 787 acres including land in Survey No. 81 of Kalvalanagaram Village, Telangana, as reserve forest. The appellants claimed about 600 acres of this land under old pattas allegedly granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1931-32, and sought its exclusion from the forest notification. The Joint Collector rejected their claim in 2003 for want of proof of title, but a Single Judge of the High Court allowed their writ petition and quashed the forest reservation; a Division Bench then reversed that on the State's appeal, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the revenue records relied on by the appellants (Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi, Pahani entries) were truncated, contradictory, and unsupported by any lawfully granted patta or mutation order, and that mere revenue entries do not prove title. It reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226, effectively invoking certiorari, is not the proper forum to resolve disputed questions of fact and title, which belong before a civil court in a regular suit. The Court found the Single Judge had wrongly expanded the scope of judicial review by effectively declaring title in the appellants' favour on inadequate evidence, and that the Division Bench had correctly corrected this in the impugned judgment. The civil appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Disputed questions of land title cannot be conclusively settled through a writ petition; parties claiming ownership against the government (including over forest land) must establish title through a full civil suit, since revenue records alone are not proof of ownership.