Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The District Collector vs P. Gunavathi on 20 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2026
[ARISING OUT OF Special Leave PETITION (CIVIL)
NO.4702/2024]
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
VERSUS
P. GUNAVATHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the Division
Bench of the High Court1 dated 25.08.2022 in Writ
Appeal No.408 of 2013, whereby the Writ Appeal was
allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 18.12.2012, passed in Writ Petition (C) No.4274
of 2009, was set aside.
4. In short, the facts are as under:
5. The predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent
applied under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (‘1948 Act’) to claim ryotwari
Signature Not Verified
patta over 12-50 cents in Paimash No.394, R.S.No.33 of
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
1 1 High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amrawati
Date: 2026.07.24
16:24:16 IST
Reason:
1
Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor
District. The Settlement Officer, Nellore allowed the
application and, vide order dated 12.06.1986, granted
ryotwari patta. Aggrieved therewith, a revision
petition was filed by the District Collector, Chittoor
under Section 5(2) of the 1948 Act before the
Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh. The said revision petition was
dismissed. Aggrieved therewith, a revision was
preferred by Mandal Revenue Officer before the
Commissioner of Appeals. This too was dismissed.
Impugning the orders of the Settlement Officer,
Commissioner and Director of Settlements and the
Commissioner of Appeals, a Writ Petition was presented
before a Single Judge of the High Court. The learned
Single Judge took the view that the application of the
first respondent itself disclosed that land i.e.,
Survey No.33, over which rights were claimed, was
wrongly classified as Chennaiah Kunta Cheruvu (Tank
Bed). Section 3 (16) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra
Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, (‘1908 Act’) defines
‘ryoti land’. As per the definition, ‘ryoti land’ does
not include ‘beds and bunds’ of tanks. Since in the
records the land in question was classified as
2
Chennaiah Kunta Cheruvu, which means tank bed, unlessthe said classification is determined incorrect, the
Settlement Officer would derive no jurisdiction to
grant ‘ryotwari patta’. Consequently, the learned
Single Judge set aside the orders of the three
subordinate authorities and remanded the matter to the
Settlement Officer by observing as under:
“Grant of ‘ryotwari’ patta under Section
11(a) of the Act, 1948, is in respect of
ryoti lands. As per the resurvey,
Survey No.33 is classified as Chennaiah
Kunta Cheruvu. Unless the classification
is found to be incorrect, question of
granting patta, even if it is presumed
that the parents of Polakala Kuppuswamy
cultivated the lands, does not arise.
First the primary authority must decide
whether the classification of the land
bearing survey No.33 as Chennaiah Kunta
Cheruvu is incorrect. If the
classification is found to be incorrect,
then the issue whether deceased – 4th
respondent – Polakala Kuppuswamy is
entitled for ‘ryotwari’ patta can be
considered. The primary authority and
the revisional authorities side-tracked
the issue and mainly concentrated on the
aspect of the possession of the land.
Therefore, I am of the view that the
orders passed by the primary authority
and the revisional authorities cannot be
sustained and accordingly, the same are
hereby set aside remanding the matter
back to the primary authority i.e. the
Settlement Officer, Nellore, to consider
the issue whether the classification of
Survey No.33 as Chennaiah Kunta Cheruvu
in the resurvey is incorrect. After
recording the finding on the issue, the
Settlement Officer has to decide whether3
deceased – 4th respondent – Polakala
Kuppuswamy is entitled to grant of
‘ryotwari’ patta in respect of Ac.12.50
cents in Survey No.33”
6. In the writ appeal filed against the order of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court, the writ
appellant i.e., the first respondent took a plea that
the State respondent had placed no documents on record
to substantiate that the subject land is tank bed,
therefore there was no justification for the learned
Single Judge to set aside the orders passed by the
three subordinate authorities passed on appreciation
of the evidence on record.
7. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal by the
impugned judgment and, in paragraph 11 of the impugned
judgment, observed that from a reading of the order of
the Settlement Officer it is clear that except filing
a counter affidavit, no documentary evidence was
placed on record by the Mandal Revenue Officer to
substantiate the plea of the Department; besides,
despite sufficient time being granted to them and in
spite of several reminders, the Department failed to
produce documents and pre-abolition records,
therefore, finding of fact, based on consideration of
the materials placed on record, was not liable to be
4
interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writjurisdiction. Accordingly, the Division Bench set
aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court.
8. Questioning the order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that grant of ‘ryotwari’ patta could only be
over ‘Ryoti’ land. ‘Ryoti’ land would not include a
‘tank bed’. Therefore, once the applicant, in its
application, stated that the land has been wrongly
classified as ‘tank bed’, the authority would not have
had jurisdiction to proceed further on the application
for grant of ‘ryotwari’ patta without first
determining the jurisdictional issue, that is, whether
the land is ‘ryoti’ land or not, particularly when it
is classified as ‘tank bed’. It was contended that in
absence of such determination, the learned Single
Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the
Revenue Authorities and remanding the matter for fresh
consideration.
9. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the first respondent, submitted that the
Commissioner of Appeals had noticed that the survey
maps indicated presence of tank over Survey no.176 and
5
not Survey No.33 in respect of which the applicationwas submitted for ‘ryotwari’ patta. Once the final
court of fact had come to the conclusion that the land
was not shown as ‘tank bed’ in the survey maps, there
was no justification for the learned Single Judge to
remand the matter for a fresh determination,
particularly when no documents were produced by the
Department as regards the classification of the land
on the date of abolition of estates.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and have
perused the materials available on record.
11. A perusal of the order of the Settlement Officer would
indicate that the own stand of the first respondent,
in its application for seeking ryotwari patta, was to
the effect that the Department had been wrongly
treating the subject land as tank poramboke and that
the survey authorities had wrongly classified the land
as tank poramboke.
12. Admittedly, the original records in respect of entries
prior to the abolition of estates were not produced in
the proceedings. They have also not been produced
before us. Therefore, what is relevant is that the
case of the respondent had been that the subject land
was wrongly classified as ‘tank bed’ or ‘tank
6
poramboke, by whatever name it be called. It is not inissue that ‘ryotwari’ patta could only be granted over
‘ryoti’ land. Further, it is not in issue that ‘ryoti
land’ would not include a tank bed. In such a
scenario, when from the own case of the respondent the
land was classified as “Tank Bed”, without determining
whether such classification of subject land was
erroneous, the Settlement Officer would not derive
jurisdiction to grant “ryotwari” patta. It is on that
very ground, the learned Single Judge of the High
Court remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication.
13. It is well settled that in a legal proceeding whenever
a jurisdictional issue arises for consideration, the
authorities cannot proceed further without addressing
and determining the same.
14. As we do not find any specific finding that the
classification of the subject land entered in the
revenue records is erroneous, or that the subject land
is not classified as ‘Tank Bed’, the remand of the
matter to the subordinate authorities to first address
the jurisdictional issue appears justified. We are,
therefore, of the view that the Division Bench of the
High Court committed serious error in setting aside
the order of the learned Single Judge which merely
7
remanded the matter to the subordinate authorities tofirst address the jurisdictional issue. Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside
and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court is restored. All contentions are kept
open for the parties to raise in the proceedings to be
conducted pursuant to the order of remand.
15. As the subject proceedings were initiated several
decades back, the concerned authority to which the
matter has been remanded shall ensure that the
proceedings are decided in terms of the order of
remand expeditiously, preferably, within a period of
nine months from the date a certified copy of this
order is placed before the authority concerned.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…………………………………………………J
[MANOJ MISRA]
…………………………………………………J
[VIJAY BISHNOI]
New Delhi
July 20, 2026
8
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.10 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.4702/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
25-08-2022 in WA No. 408/2013 passed by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amravati]
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
P. GUNAVATHI & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 24641/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 26505/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 64311/2024 –
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 20-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR
Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. K. Sarat Kumar Raju, Adv.
Mr. Syed Khader Mohideen, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv.
9
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order which is placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
10
