HYDERABAD: Ending a dispute that dates back more than 75 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the classification of around 600 acres in Bhadradri Kothagudem district as forest land, dismissing a civil appeal that challenged its inclusion in a reserve forest.
The case relates to land in Survey No. 81 of Kalvalanagaram, now in Karakagudem mandal. A February 6, 1950 Gazette notification had proposed including 787 acres, including the disputed land, in a reserve forest under the Hyderabad Forest Act.
The appellants, led by Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao and others, claimed the land had been granted to them by their ancestors during the Nizam era through pattas issued in 1931-33 Fasli. They challenged a May 19, 2003 order of the then Khammam joint collector rejecting their claim.
In 2012, a single judge of the then Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed their writ petition and invalidated the forest reservation proceedings. However, a bench later reversed the ruling, holding that the claimants had failed to produce primary title documents and that revenue records alone could not establish ownership.
In its May 6, 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court agreed with the bench and dismissed the appeal.
The court said the appellants relied mainly on revenue records such as Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi and Pahanis without producing the original pattas. It reiterated that revenue records and mutation entries do not confer ownership or title and can at best indicate possession.
The bench also noted that village records for several Fasli years described the land as “jungle”. It pointed to inconsistencies in the appellants’ records and absence of proof showing transfer of ownership to the present claimants.
The court upheld the 2003 order of the joint collector, holding that the appellants failed to establish title or long-term possession over the land, which remained uncultivated and covered with forest growth for decades.
Rejecting the plea for fresh adjudication, the Supreme Court observed that prolonging litigation further was unwarranted in the absence of foundational evidence.