Revenue authorities cannot cancel mutations where disputed title requires adjudication by a civil court.

The dispute concerned agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.727/1 at Chinnagudur Village, Mahabubabad District, including Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.727/1/A. The petitioners claimed title through succession from Murari Chandraiah, mutation in favour of petitioner No.1, and subsequent registered gift deeds in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, followed by mutation and issuance of pattadar pass books.

Respondent No.6 claimed title under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.2001 executed by the alleged legal heirs of Murari Somaiah and sought cancellation of the petitioners’ mutations and pattadar pass books before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

During the proceedings, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 was repealed and the pending appeal was transferred to the Special Tribunal under Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020.

Respondent No.6 died on 29.01.2021, before the Special Tribunal passed its orders, but his legal representatives were not brought on record.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal cancelled the petitioners’ mutations and pattadar pass books by order dated 25.06.2021, while directing the parties to approach the civil court for declaration of title.

After the Tribunal’s order, respondent Nos.7 to 9 instituted O.S. No.288 of 2021 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, rectification of revenue entries and injunction; the suit remained pending.

During the writ proceedings, the 2020 Act was repealed by the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025, which preserved actions taken under the repealed Act and provided for mutation in accordance with civil-court decrees.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite Section 16(2) of the 2020 Act declaring orders of the Special Tribunal final, and despite respondent No.6 having died before the writ petition was instituted?

Whether the order of the Special Tribunal was void because it was passed after the death of respondent No.6 without bringing his legal representatives on record or affording them an opportunity of hearing?

Whether the Special Tribunal could cancel the petitioners’ mutations and pattadar pass books when the rival claims involved disputed questions of title pending adjudication before the civil court?

What relief should be granted?

The Court held that the finality clause in Section 16(2) of the 2020 Act operated only within the statutory hierarchy and could not exclude the High Court’s constitutional judicial-review jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, particularly in cases involving jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice.

Under the principles in Karuppaswamy v. C. Ramamurthy, (1993) 4 SCC 41, and Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya, (2017) 9 SCC 700, a bona fide mistake in impleading a dead party may be cured by bringing the legal representatives on record.

However, an order or decree passed for or against a dead person is a nullity, as recognised in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340, and Gurnam Singh v. Gurbachan Kaur, (2017) 13 SCC 414.

Section 13 of the 2020 Act conferred civil-court powers upon authorities conducting enquiries, requiring observance of procedural principles analogous to Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court further applied the settled rule that revenue mutations neither create nor extinguish title and ordinarily serve fiscal purposes: Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; and Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802.

Under Sections 5–7 and 11 of the 2020 Act, and Sections 8, 10(5), 11 and 18 of the 2025 Act, revenue authorities may conduct a summary enquiry concerning entries, but disputed title must be determined by a competent civil court, after which the record of rights is to be amended in accordance with the decree.

The Court first rejected the maintainability objection. Section 16(2) of the 2020 Act could not bar constitutional judicial review where the challenge alleged nullity, lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.

Although the writ petition initially named the deceased respondent No.6, his legal representatives were subsequently impleaded, participated through counsel and were heard fully; no prejudice was established. Further, they had themselves failed to inform the Special Tribunal of his death or seek substitution.

On the validity of the Tribunal’s order, the Court held that respondent No.6 had died before both the interim and final orders. Since the Tribunal passed the order in favour of a person who no longer had legal existence, without substitution of his legal representatives, the order was a nullity.

Independently, the Tribunal’s order was unsustainable on merits. Having recognised that the controversy involved title and directed the parties to seek a civil-court declaration, the Tribunal could not simultaneously cancel the petitioners’ revenue entries and pattadar pass books. Such cancellation effectively prejudged the title dispute and altered the parties’ position during the pendency of the civil suit.

The pending suit itself sought recovery of possession, indicating that possession was disputed and could not be conclusively determined through summary revenue proceedings.

The statutory scheme required the revenue record to follow, rather than precede, the civil court’s adjudication of title.

The High Court set aside the Special Tribunal’s order dated 25.06.2021 in Tribunal Case No.273 of 2021/ROR Appeal Petition No. E/656/2016/RDO, holding it void because it was passed after the death of respondent No.6 without substitution of his legal representatives and unsustainable because the Tribunal had cancelled revenue entries despite recognising that title had to be decided by the civil court.

The petitioners’ revenue entries and pattadar pass books-cum-title deeds were restored to the position existing before the impugned order, subject to the result of O.S. No.288 of 2021.

The Court expressly refrained from deciding title or possession and directed that the successful party may seek consequential mutation under Section 8 of the 2025 Act after disposal of the civil suit.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.