1) obtain certified copy of pattas issued in favour of claimants

2) Section 6 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 create a statutory presumption about the correctness of the entries in record of rights.

3) if a persons name is recorded as an occupant or pattadar in these records, a necessary presumption would arise in his favour or in favour of the persons who claim through him that he holds title to the land. In case of a dispute between two private parties, this presumption can be rebutted by the rival claimant by producing better evidence, such as subsequent partitions, mutation in the revenue record and registered sale transactions et

4) in case you are aggrieved you will have to move court for necessary reliefs

You have to check under what capacity those persons are claiming rights on it.

Since it is agricultural and the local law may allow persons to cultivate land if it is not used by the actual owner for long.

Anyway challenge such provision in court of law and seek your legal rights.

On what basis those claimants are claiming the title to the lands? This needs to be ascertained locally. If it is a case of illegal dispossession from the property then a lawsuit for declaration of ownership along with a criminal complaint for trespass and cheating should be filed.

1) there is gross delay in filing an appeal before RDO for over 27 years

2) an appeal is to be filed within period of 60 days of communication of order . Appeal is barred by limitation

3) TAndhra High Court

M.B. Ratnam And Ors. vs Revenue Divisional Officer And ... on 24 January, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2003 (1) ALD 826, 2003 (1) ALT 688

the belated attempt on the part of respondents herein to impugn the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer is nothing but an after-thought. Settled legal rights cannot be permitted to be unsettled in this fashion. Such course is not permissible in law. If such a course is permitted, there will be no end to the litigation and no finality can be attached to any of the orders of the Courts or Tribunals, as the case may be.

51. The entries in the record of rights are made after holding public enquiries. The entries made in the record of rights carry with them a great evidentiary value, sometimes they constitute the only evidence available in order to establish one's title to the lands. The record of rights is thus prepared, maintained and updated by public servants in discharge of their official duties. It would be impossible to accept that the entries made in the record of rights in the instant case which remained in the record for a period of over 10 years have not been noticed by the respondents until they have preferred the appeals before the appellate authority. The vague explanation offered by the respondents about the entries and the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, is totally unacceptable.

52. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the so-called appeals preferred by the respondents herein ought not to have been entertained by the appellate authority after long lapse of more than 10 years virtually unsettling the settled rights of the parties. The rights accrued in favour of the petitioners cannot be set aside resulting in miscarriage of justice.

53. The order condoning the delay and admitting the appeals and their disposal is vitiated. It is an improper exercise of jurisdiction.

The transfer of patta y the revenue department can be made no doubt on being presented with an application for the same. However it becomes their duty to issue notice to the previous owner and confirm if he has transferred or died etc. You can prefer an appeal against this order with the respective collector by producing the title documents in yor possession, n the meantime you may file a declaration suit before the concerned court for declaring your title as well as for re-transferring the patta on you names.

While Orders are still pending for next hearing, a doubt is expressed that our appeal might be invalid by limitations act, as it took almost 27 years from issue of passbooks to our appeal. Please clarify if our appeal becomes void.

Thanks again.

Even in such a situation, you may approach a civil court with suit for declaration to declare your title on the basis of your partition deed and inheritance.

An oral partition, not reduced to a memorandum, is no partition in the eyes of law. The remedy for you is to file a lawsuit for declaration of ownership to the property in the civil court. The claim is not hit by the provisions of limitation act. Be that as it may, the remedy adopted by you before the RDO does not impair your remedy before the civil court.