State property disputes require impleading the State; long possession and records can raise a presumption of ownership.

Where State property is in dispute, the State must be impleaded in its own name; a writ petition or appeal filed only in the name of a Government officer was not maintainable. On title, settled and long possession supported by revenue records, setwar entries and official correspondence raised a rebuttable presumption of ownership under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. The State produced no evidence of vesting on abolition of jagirs, and the forest notification was held to create a protected forest area without extinguishing private ownership. The pattedars' title was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition and appeal filed in the name of a Government officer, without impleading the State, were maintainable in a dispute concerning State property; (ii) whether long possession and revenue records established the pattedars' title, and whether the forest notification displaced that title.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition and appeal filed in the name of a Government officer, without impleading the State, were maintainable in a dispute concerning State property.

Analysis: Article 300 of the Constitution of India and Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 require the State to sue or be sued in its own name. The Court held that where the State's property is in dispute, the State is a necessary party and an officer's name cannot be treated as a mere misdescription. It further held that one Government department should not litigate against another in court and that such inter-departmental disputes ought to be resolved within the Government framework.

Conclusion: The writ petition and the appeal filed in the name of the Chief Conservator of Forests were not maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether long possession and revenue records established the pattedars' title, and whether the forest notification displaced that title.

Analysis: The Court applied Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and held that settled possession raises a rebuttable presumption of ownership. The pattedars produced long-standing possession, revenue receipts, setwar records, and supporting official correspondence, while the State produced no evidence to prove that the lands had vested in it at the time of abolition of jagirs. The forest notification under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Forest Act, 1355 Fasli was held only to create a protected forest area and not to extinguish private ownership. The statutory order under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli also supported the pattedars' claim.

Conclusion: The pattedars' title to the lands was upheld and the State failed to displace the presumption arising from possession.

Final Conclusion: The common challenge to the title and the consequential writ proceedings failed, and the decree in favour of the pattedars was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a dispute over State property, the State must be impleaded in its own name, and long, peaceful possession supported by records raises a rebuttable presumption of ownership unless the opposite party proves a better title; a forest notification does not by itself extinguish private rights.

---