An unexplained cancellation of a decades-old land grant supported by official records is unsustainable.

Venkatamma claimed that four acres in Sy. No. 28, Agara Village, had been granted to her under an Official Memorandum dated 25 January 1980.

A Saguvali Chit was issued in 1981, and the land was mutated in her name in 1995, with her name appearing in the RTC extracts thereafter.

Following a 2009 show-cause notice, the Special Deputy Commissioner concluded that the grant documents were fake and directed that the Government’s name be entered in the revenue records.

The resulting order dated 16 January 2010 and mutation dated 8 June 2010 were challenged in this writ petition; Venkatamma’s legal representative pursued it after her death.

Whether the Special Deputy Commissioner’s order treating the grant as not genuine and directing entry of the Government’s name was sustainable in light of the grant documents, Saguvali Chit, and revenue records

Whether the impugned action, taken approximately 30 years after the grant and without action against two similarly situated grantees, warranted interference

The judgment does not identify or apply a specific statutory provision or precedent.

In exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court assessed whether the challenged revenue action was justified by the record and the circumstances in which it was taken.

It treated the grant memorandum, Saguvali Chit, payment of the grant price, and longstanding mutation and RTC entries as material evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim; it also considered the unexplained delay and differential treatment of similarly situated grantees.

The Court found that the 1980 memorandum recorded grants of four acres each to Venkatamma and two other persons; Venkatamma had paid the grant price, received a Saguvali Chit, and had her name entered in the revenue records from 1995 onwards.

Against that record, the authority’s conclusion that her grant was not genuine was not accepted.

The Court further noted that action had been taken against Venkatamma alone, not the two other grantees, and that the decision to cancel her grant came approximately 30 years after it was made without an appropriate explanation for the delay.

It directed the Tahsildar to restore the revenue records in favour of her legal representatives within two months of receipt of the order.