(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in including the land in Sy.No.608/ 2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-00 cents of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District in the prohibited list and the memo issued by the 2nd respondent in Memo RC.No.M1/COE-19025(35)/21/2019 dated 16.04.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete the land in Sy.No.608/ 2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-00 cents of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District from the prohibited list and pass Prayer is amended as per the Court's Order dt.03.12.2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2025.

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5th respondent to receive and register the documents submitted by the petitioner for registration in respect of land in Sy.No.608/ 2 of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District without reference to its inclusion in the prohibited list, pending disposal of the WP and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein respondent No. 6 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter of the 2nd respondent on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass

IA NO: 4 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave for filing of this Counter Affidavit dated 02-10-2023 in W.P.No.6835 of 2023, in the interest of justice, and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the prayer by adding the following words after the word prohibited list and the memo issued by the 2nd respondent in Memo RC.No.M1/COE- 19025(35)/21/2019 dated 16.04.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and pass)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

                  “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondents in including the land in Sy.No.608/2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-00 cents of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District in the prohibited list and the memo issued by the 2nd respondent in Memo RC.No.M1/COE- 19025(35)/21/2019 dated 16.04.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete the land in Sy.No.608/ 2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-00 cents of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District from the prohibited list and pass….”

2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for Endowments of Rayalaseema Region and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

3. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is pertaining to a piece of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.00cents in Sy.No.608/2 of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. The said land was purchased by the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed bearing document nos.5023 to 5028/2003 on 08.12.2003. Ever since from the date of purchase, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

4. Initially one Labba Shaik Ahmed mortgaged the property in favour of Narayana Kistappa and others in respect of the land in Sy.No.608 of Kalluru Village. When the mortgagee failed to pay the amount, the mortgager filed a suit on the file of the District Court vide O.S.No.8 of 1877 and the said suit was decreed on 25.01.1878. For realization of the decree, the decree holders filed Execution Petition and in pursuance of the execution proceedings, the property was sold by way of public auction on 14.05.1880. One Ulachala Bala Yellaiah has participated in the said auction and purchased the land in Sy.No.608 admeasuring an extent of Ac.22.99 cents and an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.572, an extent of Ac.9.93 cents in Sy.No.743, an extent of Ac.4.62 cents in Sy.No.678 and an extent of Ac.21.50 cents in Sy.No.715 of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District through registered sale deed No.26/1880. Subsequently, number of sale transactions were taken place, those are in the years 1889, 1904, 1907, 1961 and 1982 and finally the petitioner has purchased in the year 2003 through registered sale deeds.

5. In fact, in the year 1957, the trustee of Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Kurnool filed an application u/Sec.87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for issuance of certificate that the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the petition schedule belong to Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Kurnool Town.

                  Reply to the said application, the predecessors in title of the petitioner filed their counter stating that the land in Sy.No.608 was called as Mondivani Chenu and prior to 1874 it was in possession and enjoyment of one Labbe Shaik Ahmed and the property was brought to sale in the Court auction held in execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.8 of 1877 and the transaction was taken place in the year 1880. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering the entire record, passed an order on 26.7.1957 holding that the respondents therein i.e. predecessors of the petitioner’s claim their title on the basis of sale certificate issued by the Court and it cannot be said that their claim is not bonafide, and accordingly directed the temple to agitate the matter in civil Court and dismissed the application. But for the reasons best known the respondent temple has not initiated any proceedings before the civil Court seeking declaration of title.

6. Subsequently, the predecessors of the title of the petitioner have partitioned their properties by means of a registered partition deed and the vendor of the petitioner got the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.00 cents and the same was purchased by the petitioner on 08.12.2003. The total area/extent of the land in Sy.No.608 is Ac.22.99 cents out of which an extent of Ac.9.00 cents was converted into house plots and permission was granted vide L.P.No.13/85 and the layout plan was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. Further in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents of land, a building was constructed and an extent of Ac.1.48 cents was acquired for the purpose of laying a railway line.

7. The petitioner’s land fell in Sy.No.608/2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.00 cents of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner wanted to alienate the property and on enquiry in the office of Sub-Registrar with regard to market value of the property, the petitioner was informed that the above land was placed in the prohibited list on the ground that they have received a letter from the Commissioner of Endowments stating that the land is a temple land. Consequently, the petitioner herein made a representation on 17.12.2019 to the Commissioner of Endowments and also to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments seeking deletion of lands from the prohibited list and also sent several reminders. When there is no action on the part of respondent nos.2 and 4, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.22043 of 2020 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 03.12.2022 directing the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to conduct an enquiry and if necessary to afford personal hearing to the petitioner and submit a detailed report to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 is directed to pass appropriate orders. When the respondents have not acted upon the directions of this court, the petitioner was constrained to file C.C.No.420 of 2021 in this Court and in that, they have filed counter stating that the property belongs to the temple based on the revenue records. Accordingly, they have included the said properties under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act. Basing on the averments made in the counter in C.C.No.420 of 2021, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition with a prayer to declare the action of respondents in including the land in Sy.No.608/2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.00cents of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District in the prohibitory list, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act and consequently direct respondent no.2 to delete the land from prohibitory list.

8. Subsequently, the respondents have filed counter and along with the counter, they have also placed the memo issued by respondent no.2 dated 06.4.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has filed amendment of prayer assailing the said memo in the present Writ Petition and accordingly ordered the said amendment petition on 03.12.2025 and carried out amendment.

9. Respondent no.2 i.e. the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh has filed his counter. He denied General Power of Attorney executed by Kavya Reddy in favour of the petitioner and prays to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. In fact, the petitioner, earlier filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.22043 of 2020 against the respondents herein for the same subject property as of this case and the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.12.2020. Hence for the same relief, the second writ petition is not maintainable.

10. Further he has denied with regard to possession and enjoyment of the subject property and with regard to decree dated 25.01.1878 in O.S.No.8 of 1877 and Execution Proceedings and registration dated 14.5.1880 and with regard to subsequent transactions, the petitioner has to put to strict proof of the same. Further with regard to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Machilipatnam in O.R.No.63/1957 dt.26.07.1957 stating that the Trustee of Sri Veerabhadra Swamy temple, Kurnool filed an application u/Sec.87 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for issuance of certificate that the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the petition belongs to Sri Veerabhadra Swamy temple, Kurnool Town. With regard to said orders, the Deputy Commissioner has denied that the said order is an unsigned copy and the said order was passed u/Sec.87 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act without details of Act number and year. Whereas Section 57 of the Act 19 of 1951 envisages Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters. Hence, the copy of order in O.R.No.63/1957 dt.26.7.1957 filed by the petitioner carries doubt about its authenticity. Without admitting the said orders dt.26.7.1957, the Authority has not determined title of the property in question in favour of any party.

11. It is further stated that the entries in Revenue Records clearly discloses that the land in Sy.No.608 of Kallur Village belongs to Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Kurnool such as R.S.R of Kallur Village prepared in the year 1906 contains that Sy.No.608 with an extent of Ac.22.99 cents stands in the name of ‘Manger of Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Pagoda’ and as per ROR (1B) register, the subject lands in Sy.No.608/1 in an extent of Ac.2.11 cts and Sy.No.608/2 in an extent of Ac.19.40 cts are in the name of "Kurnool Veerabhadra Swamy". As per Record of Holding (RH) the land in Sy.No.608 of Kallur (V) was subdivided in the name of Kurnool Veerabhadra Swamy Temple as Devadayam as Sy.No.608/A in an extent of Ac.2.11 cents, in Sy.No.608/B in an extent of Ac.19.40cents and in Sy.No.608/c in an extent of Ac.1.48cents and as per Adangal for fasali 1412, the land in Sy.No.608/1 and 608/2 with extents Ac.2.11cents and Ac.19.40cents respectively are in the name of Commissioner of Endowments Department. Accordingly, it is evident as per the revenue records, the respondent no.2 has rightly notified the properties of Sri Veerbhadra Swamy Temple, Kurnool in the list u/Sec.22A(I)(c) of the Registration Act. Accordingly, the Executive Officer of the temple, Mandal Incharge and the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool kept the same in Annexure-III, to safeguard endowed properties of the subject temple and to avoid illegal transactions.

12. The details of endowed properties of the subject temple including Sy.No.608/1 and 608/2 with extents Ac.2.11cents and Ac.19.40cents respectively at Kallur (V & M) are included in the register maintained u/Sec.43 of the Act. The register u/Sec.43 of the Act belongs to the subject temple was approved by respondent no.4 herein on 04.5.1996. Accordingly, the register u/Sec.43(10) of the Act belongs to the subject temple was approved by respondent no.4 herein vide orders dated 30.12.2022. As per sub section (3) of Section 46 of Act 30 of 1987, there is a presumption that the details mentioned in the register maintained u/Sec.43 of the Act are genuine until the contrary is established. Further as per Sub Section (1) of Sec.45 of the Act 1987, any person aggrieved by an entry or omission to make an entry in the register maintained u/Sec.43 may apply to the Endowments Tribunal for modification or annulment of such entry or for directing the making of such entry, as the case may be. Accordingly, as the properties were included under Section 43 Register, the same was also updated as per Section 43(10) of the Act dated 30.12.2022. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the same.

13. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized his submissions that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. She purchased the subject land through the registered sale deed in the year 2003 and since then, the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the subject land. Before purchasing the said land, the petitioner has also placed title back from the year 1874. Originally one Labba Shaik Ahmed mortgaged the property and due to default, the property was auctioned by Court and as per the executive proceedings the said properties were registered in favour of one Ulachala Bala Yellaiah. Subsequently, number of registered transactions in the years 1889, 1904, 1907, 1961 and 1982 were taken place. After obtaining the legal opinion, the petitioner purchased the subject land and accordingly the same was registered in the year 2003. More than two decades, the petitioner is in uninterrupted possession of the property. On verifying the above said transactions, it is clearly established that the petitioner is the original owner and absolute possessor of the subject property.

14. Further, he also relied on the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department Machilipatnam dated 26.7.1957. When respondent no.7 temple has approached the Deputy Commissioner, u/Sec.87 of the Act for issuance of certificate with regard to subject properties in Sy.No.608 pertaining to the petitioner temple, said application is numbered as O.R.No.63 of 1957 and the same was dismissed observing that the Forum to agitate the matter is in civil Court. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner has relegated respondent no.7 to civil Court for declaration and the said order became final. Respondent no.7 has not chosen to file any suit before the competent civil Court.

15. He further submitted that while dealing with the matter the Deputy Commissioner has taken the orders passed by the civil Court in O.S.No.8 of 1877 and also taken note of various registered transactions. Hence, once the temple failed to get the certificate in favour of temple, the only remedy is to approach the civil Court but respondent no.7 has not chosen the same and kept silent. In the said circumstances, without approaching the civil Court, respondent no.7 ought not to have claim the title over the subject property and included the same u/Sec.22A(1)(c) Register as per Indian Stamps Act. He also relied on Section 143 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 which specifically prohibits the properties of Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment not to vest under the law of limitation after commencement of this Act specifically prescribes the last date to claim was 30.9.1951. In view of the said provision, the respondents stopped to claim rights over the property as the registered sale deed is made in favour of the purchasers of the property in 1880 by the Court proceedings.

16. Learned senior counsel further submits that the basis of the respondents is only entries in ROR as per the law laid down by this Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that entries in revenue records were not the conclusive proof of title. It has only evidentiary value. It cannot overwrite the registration done in favour of the petitioner.

17. He also made his submissions with regard to the registration u/Sec.43 of the Act that the respondents have registered subject properties under Section 43(10) Register subsequent to filing the contempt petition. Initially the respondents tried to sell the property. Accordingly, an application was made for issuance of market value and the same was not provided on the ground that the properties were not included in prohibitory list. Immediately, the petitioner has made a representation on 17.12.2019 and the same was not considered. Then the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ Petition vide W.P.No.22043 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on 03.12.2020 with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner to conduct an enquiry and sent proposal to the Commissioner to pass appropriate order. When the said orders were not complied, the petitioner was pressed the contempt proceedings by filing C.C.No.420 of 2021. After notice, only to circumvent said orders, the respondents have registered the temple u/Sec.43(10) of the Act. Hence the ground taken by the respondents that the property is included in Section 43 Register is only to defeat the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.22043 of 2020.

18. He also further contended that in fact the memo issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner which is assailed subsequently on 16.4.2021 does not contain the inclusion of properties under Section 43 Register and that also clearly establishes that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not on the ground of Section 43 Register. However when the respondents are claiming the entire land of Ac.22.99cents in Sy.No.608 as temple property is also not correct. Because the authorities have considered and granted lay out permission i.e. M.P.13/1985 for an extent of Ac.9.00cents and there are also buildings constructed in Ac.2.00cents. Further an extent of Ac.1.48cents was acquired by the Railway Department and award is also passed in favour of the beneficiaries. In the said circumstances, the respondents cannot say that the petitioner’s land of Ac.6.00cents in Sy.No.608/2 is a temple land. Considering the series of transactions and also possession, the respondents ought not to have included the subject properties into Sec.22A(1)(c) Register merely based on the ROR entries.

19. Further learned senior counsel has mainly placed his submissions that the inclusion of the properties under Section 22A(1)(c) of prohibitory list is contrary to the provisions of the Act. He placed reliance on the said Act.

                  Section 22-A Prohibition of Registration of Certain Documents

                  (1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:-

                  (a) Documents relating to transfer of immovable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statue of the State or Central Government;

                  (b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immovable property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;

                  (c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immovable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so."

                  According to clause ‘c’ the authorities have to place only if they acquire property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding 10 years in respect of immovable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1987 or by Wakfs Act 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so. It clearly formulates that only in those circumstances, the properties have to be placed u/Sec.22A(1)(c) Register but surprisingly here, the respondents have included only by way of a letter written by respondent no.2. There is no proof or declaration that the properties are the temple properties. Hence the very inclusion itself is contrary to Section 22A(1)(c).

20. Reply to the said submissions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents, basing on the averments made in the counter, made his submissions that the land in Sy.No.608 of Kallur Village belongs to Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Kurnool. According to the RSR entries of Kallur Village prepared in the year 1906 contains Sy.No.608 in an extent of Ac.22.99cents stand in the name of ‘Manager of Kurnool Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Pagoda’. According to ROR i.e. (1B register) the lands in Sy.No.608/1 in an extent of Ac.2.11cents and Sy.No.608/2 in an extent of Ac.19.40cents are in the name of ‘Kurnool Veerabhdra Swamy’. Further as per Record of Holding (RH) the land in Sy.No.608 of Kallur Village was sub-divided in the name of Kurnool Veerabhadra Swamy Temple as Devadayam as Sy.No.608/A in an extent of Ac.2.11cents, Sy.No.608/B in an extent of Ac.19.40cents and Sy.No.608/C in an extent of Ac.1.48cents. A perusal of the above said entries in revenue records shows that the respondents more particularly respondent no.2 has rightly recorded/notified the lands in Sy.No.608 u/Sec.22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act to safeguard the endowment properties of the subject temple and to avoid illegal transactions.

21. He further stressed his arguments that the subject temple is included/registered under the register maintained u/Sec.43 of the Act Register and the same was approved by respondent no.4 herein on 04.5.1996. Section 43(10) Register belongs to subject temple was approved to by respondent no.4 herein vide orders dated 30.12.2022. According to Section 3 of Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, once the properties are detailed in the register maintained under Section 43 are genuine until contrary is established.

22. Further as per sub-section 1 of Section 45 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an entry or omission to make an entry in the register maintained u/Sec.43 of the Act may apply to the Endowments Tribunal for notification or annulment of such entry u/Sec.87 of the Act 1987. Hence in the instant case as the properties were included in Section 43 Register and the same was also approved u/Sec.43(10) by the authorities on 30.12.2022, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach competent Endowments Tribunal u/Sec.87 of the Act. Hence, including the properties under prohibitory list and also the rejection of the request made by the petitioner vide order dated 16.4.2021 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act for having an alternate remedy the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

23. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and gone through the material on  record, the only question fell for consideration of this Court is that whether the petitioner was the original owner or not and the respondents have any title over the subject property. To analyze the above said aspect, on a perusal of the entire material, the petitioner’s predecessors purchased the subject property in a Court decree and the registrations were done in favour of the predecessors of the petitioner by the Court in the year 1880 and the subsequent transactions which were happened in the year 1889, 1904, 1907, 1961 and 1982 were not denied by the respondents. Accordingly, it is presumed that the said transactions are genuine. The petitioner has purchased the subject property basing on the series of transactions. Hence it can safely be concluded that the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser. Further with regard to the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1957 in O.R.No.63/1957 was also clearly establishes that the request of respondent no.7 for grant of certificate is denied by the authority and directing them to approach the civil Court for declaration. Though the respondents in their counter not denied about the said proceedings but vaguely stated that there are no signatures contained in the said order. It is surprising that when the petitioner relied on a particular document of the respondent Department, who prevented the respondents to conduct an enquiry with regard to the above said document.

24. Further with regard to the claim made by the respondents basing on the ROR entries, the said aspect was considered by this Court extensively in the judgment in between G.Satyanarayana vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others(W.P.No.15438 of 2012). In that the Court has considered the evidentiary value of the entries in the revenue records. Court has followed the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kasturchand vs. Harbilash(AIR 2000 S.C.3037 = 2000(7) SCC 611) and reiterated the evidentiary value of the entries in the village records. Further in the decision reported in between Ramanna vs. Samba Murthy(AIR 1961 A.P.361) was also considered wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that the entries in the revenue records, though they may be relevant evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, are not evidence of title. Further the same was followed in the decision reported in between State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Keshav Ram and others(1996(11) SCC 257) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the entries made in revenue records cannot form basis for declaration of title. Considering the above said matters, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in between Union of India, represented by its Secretary vs. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. And others(2002(5) ALT 370M(DB)) held that even if the entries in the revenue records of rights carry evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the plaintiff on the suit land in question. Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries that the plaintiff’s predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased. In the very same judgment, the Court has also observed that the properties may change hands from person to person from time to time. There may be lapse on the part of the persons who maintain the record in updating the transactions. A person to whom the land is lawfully conveyed cannot be denied title only on the basis of absence of entries to this effect in the revenue records. Finally, learned Judge has held as follows:

                  “From what is discussed above, it appears to me that in the absence of a document such as patta or a grant, a person in possession of land for 12 years or more without title can claim transfer of registry in his favour as envisaged by para-7 of BSO-31. The possession of a person coupled with multiple sale transactions would also form basis for his claim to title. In such cases, the burden shifts to the rival claimant, be it a private citizen or the Government, to prove that the land belongs to or vested in them. In many cases, despite successive registered sale transactions, the Government denies title set up by private citizens. In these cases, the burden on the Government is heavier, for, the presumption goes in favour of the person who claims the land on the strength of registered sale transactions which constitute public notice, as held by the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana({2009(7) SCC 363}) in cases of repeated sale transactions over a number of years, a presumption arises that since the land is not vested in the Government, the same is permitted to be sold. Such a presumption can only be displaced by the Government with reference to the evidence proving that the land is vested in it.”

25. Further an identical issue was also considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Yerikala Sunkalamma and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue and others(2025 LawSuit(SC) 405) wherein the facts of the case are identical to this. There also the predecessors of the appellants have purchased the property under Court auction and the registration was done in Execution proceedings in favour of the predecessors on 22.4.1970 and subsequently, the petitioner has purchased the same in Court auction. Subsequently, when the respondents have claimed ownership of the property and invoke the provisions of 1977 Act and resumed the land for public purpose. The said action was assailed by institution of suit and suit was decreed, as against the State preferred first appeal, first appeal was allowed setting aside the decree, as against, the beneficiaries approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. While considering the merits of the case, the Court has considered the entire issue particularly the validity of the Court auction proceedings and also the evidentiary value of the revenue entries and over all consideration of the documentary evidence based on the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short BSA, 2023). While considering the issue, with regard to the Court auction, the Court has taken the observations made by the Bombay High Court which are reproduced at paragraph no.66 and so on which reads as follows:

                  “66. We have been able to lay our hands on a very lucid and erudite decision rendered by the Bombay High Court more than a century ago i.e., in 1912, in Narayan Anandram Marwadi v. Gowbai, widow of Dhondiba reported in ILR 37 Bom. 415. We could not resist the temptation to refer to and rely upon this decision of the Bombay High Court. In the said case, the property of an agriculturist mortgagor was sold in an execution of money decree by the civil court and the auction purchaser’s rights subsequently came to be vested in the mortgagee. As Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists’ Relief Act, 1879 prohibited execution of sale of agriculturists’ properties, the mortgagor treated the sale as void and sued to redeem the mortgage. The mortgagee, in turn, relied on the court-sale to contend that the mortgagor had no right to redeem. The Subordinate Judge, the District Judge on appeal and the High Court in second appeal held that the court-sale was void ─ but on Letters Patent Appeal, Scott, C.J., speaking for himself and Chandavarkar, J., held:

                  “Now the provisions of section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists’ Relief Act are provisions conferring upon members of a certain class great privileges in litigation. The section confers upon a person who is shown to be a member of the privileged class the right to resist the attachment or sale of any of his immovable property and to contend that if an attachment or sale took place in violation of the provisions of the section, such attachment or sale shall be held to be void.

                  How then is the Court to know when it is authorized to attach and sell property and when it is not? The ordinary rule is that set out in the Civil Procedure Code, section 60, which reproduces section 266 of the Code of 1882. It provides that property liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree is lands, houses, etc., belonging to the judgment-debtor. An agriculturist in order to resist the application of that general rule must, we think, show that he belongs to the privileged class so as to render section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists’ Relief Act applicable to his case. That conclusion seems to follow from the provisions of Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of proof we, therefore, hold that there is no reason to treat the immovable property sold by the Vinchur Court as the property of an agriculturist.” (Emphasis supplied)

                  67. Consequently, the suit was dismissed adopting the following dictum of Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Pandurang Balaji v. Krishnaji Govind reported in (1903) 28 Bom. 125:

                  “It is a general rule that in Courts of law only those facts can be taken to exist which are proved; so that it is manifest that in the absence of proof the exemption from liability to attachment or sale did not exist for the purpose of the execution proceedings. Therefore the executing Court had complete jurisdiction to make the order it did.” (Emphasis supplied)

                  68. The dictum as laid down in the decision referred to above of the Bombay High Court accords with our own view of the matter.

26. Further, the Court has also considered the evidentiary value of the documents under Section 113 of BSA, 2023 and held that:

                  71. Section 113 of the BSA reads as follows:

                  “When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.”

                  72. The Section embodies the well-recognised principle that possession is prima facie proof of ownership. A person in possession is entitled to remain in possession until another person can disclose a better title under Section 113 of the BSA. Therefore, once the plaintiff proves that he has been in possession of the suit property, the burden of proving that the plaintiff is not the owner is on the defendant who affirms that the plaintiff is not the owner. The Section does not make a distinction between the Government and a private citizen. Section 113 is, therefore, equally applicable where a Government claims to be the owner or challenges the ownership of the plaintiff who is in possession of the property. It is not disputed that before the possession of the Subject Land was taken over, the plaintiffs were in possession of the property for more than twenty years. The onus, therefore, under section 113 of the BSA was on the State to prove that the Government had a subsisting title to the Subject Land.

                  73. In M. Krishna Aiyar v. The Secretary of State for India reported in (1910) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 173, a Bench of the Madras High Court held that:

                  “Where in a suit for declaration of title against the Government the plaintiff proves possession for a period of more than 12 years, the Government must prove that it has a subsisting title. When the Government fails to prove such title or possession within sixty years, the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title and not merely to a declaration that he is lawfully in possession of such land.” (Emphasis supplied)

                  74. It must be remembered that what Section 113 of the BSA does is to raise a statutory presumption in favour of a person who is in possession that he is the owner and places a burden upon the other persons who say that the plaintiff is not the owner.

                  75. Section 113 of the BSA provides that when the question is whether any person is the owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. The application of this Section to lands claimed by the Government or the Municipality has been considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jagannath Shivnarayan v. Municipal Commissioner, City Municipality, Indore reported in AIR 1951 MB 80.

                  The Court has also considered the revenue entries in paragraph nos. 80 and 81 which reads as follows:

                  80. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund reported in (2007) 13 SCC 565 this Court held as under:

                  “12. A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.”

                  81. In Nair Service Society Ltd. v. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander reported in AIR 1968 SC 1165, dealing with the provisions of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, this Court held as under:

                  “17. […]possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title no one can deny but this presumption can hardly arise when the facts are known. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides.” (Emphasis supplied)

                  And basing on the above observations, Court held that:

                  83. The principle enshrined in Section 110 of the Evidence Act (now Section 113 of the BSA) is based on public policy with the object of preventing persons from committing breach of peace by taking law into their own hands, however good their title over the land in question may be. It is for this purpose that the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Sections 154 and 158 of the India Penal Code, 1860, were enacted. All the aforesaid provisions have the same objective. The said presumption is read under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and applies only in a case where there is either no proof, or very little proof of ownership on either side. The maxim “possession follows title” is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in the case of wastelands, or where nothing is known about possession one way or another. Presumption of title as a result of possession can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party and the possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful. It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it. It, in fact, means, that if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him. A person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property, while the other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/encroachment, etc. Where the apparent title is with the plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon the defendant, that in order to displace this claim of apparent title and to establish beneficial title in himself, he must establish by way of satisfactory evidence, circumstances that favour his version. Even a revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. [See: State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company reported in (2013) 9 SCC 319]

                  84. Section 113 of the BSA as discussed aforesaid, embodies the principle that possession of a property furnishes prima facie principle of ownership of the possessor and casts burden of proof on the party who denies his ownership. The presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title.

                  85. The appellants could be said to have established their possession over the suit land in question right from the year 1970. There is cogent and convincing evidence in this regard. They were in peaceful enjoyment of the suit land in question. In our opinion, the respondent State has not been able to prove its title to the suit land. Just because the suit land is surrounded by few other parcels of land owned by the Government, that by itself will not make the suit land of the ownership of the Government. If the Government claims title over the land, it has to establish it by producing relevant records in the form of revenue records etc. In our opinion, the State has failed to advance any credible evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the appellants have Pattadars’ title to the suit land in question.

                  124. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This Article has been inserted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978. Prior to this amendment, the right to property was guaranteed by Article 31. While Clause (1) of that Article has been shifted from Part III to Article 300-A, Clause (2) of that Article, which dealt with compulsory acquisition of property, has been repealed. Sub-Clause (f) of Clause (1) of Article 19, which guaranteed the right to acquire and hold property, has also been omitted by the same 44th Amendment Act, 1978. The result of these changes, in short, is that the right to hold property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution and it has been left to the Legislature to deprive a person by the authority of law.

                  127. Having regard to the nature of the land, the area of the suit land which is approximately three acres and the time spent pursuing this litigation for the past thirty years, we believe that the State should pay an amount of Rs. 70 lakhs towards compensation to the appellants.

                  128. We dispose of this appeal with the direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 70 lakhs to the appellants by way of compensation within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

27. On considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, in the identical facts, the Court has categorically considered the purchasers subsequently auction purchasers in a Court proceedings visa-vis the evidentiary value relied on by the parties with reference to Section 113 of the BSA, 2023 and held that the appellants/purchasers coupled with possession is having title and if the others wants to prove their title, the remedy is to go to proper Court. Even in the instant case also, the predecessors of the petitioner are purchasers in a Court auction and there are series of registered transactions taken place over the period and the petitioner has also purchased the subject land in 2003 and the petitioner’s possession is also not in dispute.

28. However as contended by the learned Government Pleader with regard to entries in Section 43 Register, learned senior counsel has categorically submitted that in 1996 proceedings though they are mentioned in the counter but such proceedings were not placed before the Court. Hence the said documents cannot be relied. As far as the proceedings relied on by the respondents dated 30.12.2022 issued under Section 43(10) is only to circumvent the orders of this Court in W.P.No.22043 of 2020 and also in contempt proceedings. Only after receipt of notice in contempt case, that to after filing the counter in the contempt case, subsequently, they have made the entry and issued a certificate under Section 43(10) on 30.12.2022. Hence the certificate which is relied on by the respondents ought not to have taken into consideration.

29. Considering the said submissions, it clearly establishes that the respondents have taken the proceedings in 2022 and issued certificate can safely be concluded that the said proceedings are issued only to circumvent the Court orders and also more specifically after filing contempt case.

30. Finally, no doubt, in the instant case, the petitioner purchased the property in the year 2003 basing on the link documents more specifically the transactions which were taken place since 1880 and all those documents are not contradicted by the authorities. It is also not in dispute by observing the layout plan granted by competent authority for a land in Sy.No.608 and also the acquisition proceedings by the Railway authorities and paying compensation. Further it is also not out of place to take the cognizance of the proceedings issued by the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, Machilipatnam dated 26.7.1957 wherein the authority has clearly rejected the claim of the temple for granting of certificate.

31. Having considered the entire material documents, as the nature of the land and possession coupled with registered documents, held that merely based on the RSR entries, the respondent authorities cannot include the subject properties under Section 22A(1)(c) register without having proper rights declared by any competent Court.

32. In view of the above observations, the impugned memo issued by the respondent no.2 vide Rc.No.M1/COE-19025(35)/21/2019 dated 16.4.2021 is set aside with a Mandamus to delete the subject properties from Section 22A(1)(c) Register.

33. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

                  As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.