TSLR Entry Alone Cannot Justify Government Sign Board on Private Land, Telangana HC Rules

Telangana High Court directs removal of a government sign board from a Himayathnagar property, holding that Town Survey Land Register entries do not establish title without further proof.

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, sitting singly at the High Court for the State of Telangana, allowed a writ petition filed by Jyothi Estates, Hyderabad, directing the removal of a sign board that government authorities had erected on a property at Himayathnagar bearing No.3-5-897, admeasuring 331 sq. yards. The sign board declared the land to be government property. The court held that the State cannot claim title over private land solely on the basis of entries in the Town Survey Land Register and, without a declaration from a competent court, is not entitled to erect such a sign board. The order was passed on 8 June 2026 in W.P. No.11401 of 2020.

The Property Dispute Before the Court

Jyothi Estates, represented by its Managing Partner T. Madhusudhan Goud, traced its title to a registered sale deed bearing Doc. No.148/55 dated 27 January 1955. The firm subsequently transferred possession of the property to respondent No.4 vide Doc. No.5094/97 dated 23 August 1997.

Respondent No.4 obtained building construction permission from the Commissioner vide file No.897/5/98, permit No.92/89, dated 29 January 1999. While construction was in progress, respondent No.4 and others entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of the property on 6 January 2001, with the petitioner paying a consideration of Rs.27 lakhs.

Disputes arose between the parties, and the petitioner filed O.S. No.53/2004 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking compliance with the terms of the agreement. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 23 March 2007. Respondent No.4 challenged the decree in CCCA No.157/2007 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 6 January 2025.

In the first week of June 2020, respondent No.3 erected a sign board on the subject property declaring it to be government land. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 with relevant documents requesting removal of the sign board. When that request was ignored, the writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to remove the sign board and directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's title and possession except in accordance with law.

The Competing Legal Positions

Sri Janardhan Goud Sunkari, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the subject property is private land. He placed particular reliance on a No Objection Certificate dated 14 November 1998 issued by respondent No.3 itself, at the time respondent No.4 applied for building construction permission. The NOC stated: “There was an old building existing for 40 years bearing No.3-5-897 and entries to that effect are recorded in Town Survey Land Register.” Counsel submitted that respondent No.3 was acting contrary to its own NOC by now claiming the land as government property.

He further argued that entries in the Town Survey Land Register marked as “G” are not proof of title, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited, (2010) 5 SCC 382, and on a 2017 judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.25934 of 2010 (Garlapalli Jagdeshwar v. The District Collector Hyderabad District), which held that a TSLR classification of “G” alone cannot establish that land is government property.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue countered that as per the Town Survey Land Records, the subject land is identified and recorded as “G”. She submitted that although private persons' names appear in Column No.23 of the TSLR, those parties failed to produce any valid grant from the Government, and accordingly the Settlement Officer recorded the land as government land and erected the sign board. She also argued that the building construction permission obtained in 1999 had become null and void as construction was not completed within the stipulated time.

The Government Pleader further submitted that the Town Survey was conducted between 1964 and 1971 pursuant to a notification under Section 6(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Under Section 14 of that Act, entries in the TSLR must be challenged within three years of the notification. Since the petitioners had not challenged those entries, the Government Pleader argued they are conclusive and must prevail over other documents. She relied on the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in Raidurg Co-operative House Building Society Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 3 ALT 221, for the proposition that mere revenue record entries do not confer title.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Alishetty framed the core question as whether the State is entitled to erect a sign board on the subject property as “Government land” based solely on entries in the TSLR.

The court's reasoning turned first on the NOC issued by respondent No.3 itself on 14 November 1998. On a bare reading of that certificate, the court found that respondent No.3 had, at the time of granting construction permission, perused the link documents and the TSLR entries and held it proved that an old building had existed on the property for more than 40 years. The court held that this conduct amounted to the authorities acknowledging the long and continuous possession of private persons over the property. Erecting a sign board claiming government ownership years later, after having issued such an NOC, amounted to approbation and reprobation, which the court held is impermissible in law.

On the broader legal question of TSLR entries as proof of title, the court referred to the judgment of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Satyanarayana v. State of AP, 2014 (4) ALD 358, which held that the Government cannot claim rights and title based on mere Town Survey Records unless it obtains a declaration from a competent court. That finding was upheld on appeal in W.A. No.812 of 2017.

The court also applied the principle from State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited, (2010) 5 SCC 382, that TSLR is only a revenue and survey record. Such entries may raise a presumption for fiscal purposes, but they do not by themselves establish legal title.

The court observed that the Government had produced no material beyond the TSLR entries to support its claim of title. The NOC issued by respondent No.3, far from supporting the government's position, actually evidenced the possession and enjoyment of private persons over the property by referring to the existence of an old building recorded in the TSLR itself.

In these circumstances, the court held that the precedents cited applied squarely to the facts. The State's reliance on TSLR entries alone, without any other substantive document or a declaration of title from a competent court, could not justify the erection of a sign board claiming the property as government land.

Outcome

The writ petition was allowed. Respondent No.3 was directed to remove the sign board erected on the subject property at Himayathnagar bearing No.3-5-897. No costs were awarded.

The court clarified that the State is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to seek a declaration of title over the subject land and, subject to the outcome of such proceedings, may then proceed in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed.