Pressing Need For Creation Of Dispute Register To Protect Third Parties From Being Dragged Into Litigation Over Disputed Land: Andhra Pradesh HC

In a recent judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has highlighted the pressing need for the creation of a dispute register which records disputes between parties over land. The purpose of maintaining such a register would be to protect innocent third parties from being dragged into litigation emanating from the purchase of such disputed land or from accepting such property as security for any loans that may be advanced.

Highlighting the utility of such a register, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam further observed,

“It would be appropriate, if the government were to consider this pressing need and establish a statutory basis for the creation of a dispute register with rules set out for inclusion of dispute register with rules set out for inclusion and removal of properties from such a dispute register. We may also observe that such dispute register may be used as a reference point for verification of title and for verification if there is a cloud over the title of the person claiming ownership over the land. It may not be appropriate to insist that properties entered in the dispute register cannot be alienated. Any such stipulation, may result in power being granted to revenue authorities to decide title of the claimants.”

Background

The observation was made in a case where the Court was dealing with a Writ Appeal that challenged the dismissal of a writ petition that sought to include the lands in question in a dispute register following allegations of improper sale. Initially, the appellant had filed the original suit (O.S.No.76 of 2015) for partition of land situated in various survey numbers of Brahmanakraka Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The Principal District Judge, Nellore, passed an injunction in I.A.No.200 of 2015 restraining alienation of the suit schedule property.

While the suit was pending judgment, the appellant approached the High Court through a writ petition (W.P. No.17278 of 2024) claiming that the respondents had executed nominal sale deeds with the motive of depriving the appellant of his claim over the said land. The Appellant further contended that while the District Collector (Respondent 2) and the Tahsildar, Jaladanki Mandal (Respondent 3), after being approached by the appellant, had entered the disputed property in the dispute register bearing No.78 of 2012, the Tahsildar had later removed the same from the dispute register.

The Single Judge Bench of the High Court had dismissed the petition on the grounds there was already an interim direction granted by the Principal District Judge, Nellore, on 18.09.2019. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed against the order of the Single Judge.

It was the argument of the appellant that the Tahsildar had informed the appellant that the lands were included in the dispute register. The Appellant had even produced information obtained by him, under the Right to Information Act, which showed that certain digital signatures made in relation to the land in question had been revoked.

Analysis of the High Court

The Court examined the AP ROR Rules, 1989, along with certain circulars that had been issued to set out guidelines for entering lands under dispute register. The Court noted that Rule 32 of the ROR Rules required a register to be maintained and such a register only related to suits filed under Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. Rule 32 states:

“Every person proceeding under Sec. 8(2) of the Act shall intimate to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned the particulars of the suit. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall enter the details of the suit in a register in Form XVIII. On the disposal of the suit, the Party shall communicate a copy of the order on the suit to the Mandal Revenue Officer who shall enter the details in the register in Form XVIII. The register in Form XVIII shall be open for inspection, and the certified extracts of the same shall be granted.”

Under Section 8(2) of the ROR Act, a person can file a suit against any other person who denies his title or right to a property, on the basis of entries made in the record of rights. “From the language of Section 8(2), suits that fall within the ambit of Section 8(2) of ROR Act are those suits which arise when a person, on the basis of entries made in the record or rights, denies or takes steps to deny title of the aggrieved person.”

The Court further examined circular instructions issued by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, which stipulated the circumstances under which lands could be placed in the dispute register, along with the procedure to be followed for the inclusion and deletion of lands in the dispute register. However, the Court noted that the guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner did not trace their power to any statutory provision of law.

Finding no statutory basis for inclusion of land in question in the dispute register, the Court held,

“In such circumstances the only provision that can be applied would be Rule 32 of the ROR Rules, which requires the details of suits filed under Section 8(2) of the ROR Act to be included, in a register maintained for this purpose. This would mean that the above guidelines, would not apply to suits which fall outside the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. In the present case, the suit in question is a suit for partition and does not, in any manner, falls under the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. Consequently, there would be no question of including the land, which is sought to be partitioned, in the dispute register.”

The Court accordingly, after highlighting the dire need for the creation and maintenance of a dispute register, dismissed the writ appeal.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 817 of 2024

Case Name: Medarametla Venkata Sesha Reddy v. The State Of A.P and Others

Date: 21.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order