Supreme Court ने राजस्व प्रविष्टियों को भूमि स्वामित्व का निर्णायक प्रमाण नहीं माना — शीर्षक विवादों के लिए निहितार्थ

On 6 May 2026 , a two‑judge bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that entries in revenue records are evidence of possession but cannot by themselves establish ownership when primary title documents are missing. Key Developments The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s view that revenue entries alone do not confer title. Revenue entries such as Jamabandi serve only a fiscal purpose and have no presumptive value for ownership. The Court held that invoking Article 226 is inappropriate for complex title disputes; such matters should be decided by civil courts. Even acceptance of taxes or bank loans based on revenue records does not bar the State from challenging ownership. Isolated entries for a single year cannot outweigh a long, consistent series of entries favoring another party. Important Facts The dispute involved roughly 600 acres in Survey No. 81, Kalvalanagaram Village, Telangana, claimed as forest land under the Hyderabad Forest Act . The appellants relied on alleged Nizam‑era pattas (1931‑32) and revenue entries (Faisal Patti, Pahanies, Vasool Baqi). The Joint Collector in 2003 rejected the claim for lack of original title documents. A Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court later accepted the claim, but the Division Bench reversed it, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. UPSC Relevance Understanding the distinction between revenue records and title documents is essential for questions on land‑reform, for