I. Introduction - Context:
In Revenue Department disputes, matters often revolve around land records, ownership, mutations, assignments, non-agricultural assessments, and compliance with government orders. Evidence typically includes Adangal/Pahani, FMB/Village Maps, RSR, Title Deeds, DKT Pattas, Passbooks, and Government Orders (GOs).
II. Refute Allegations Clearly & Logically with Revenue Records
Original Affidavit (Petitioner’s Claim):
"The Respondent (Tahsildar) illegally mutated Survey No. 123 in favor of a third party without issuing notice to me, the original pattadar."
Counter-Affidavit (Effective Rebuttal):
"Para 5: Denied. The mutation of Survey No. 123, Akkarampalle Village, was processed following due procedure. A public notice was issued under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and was affixed to the Village Notice Board on 15.02.2023 (Photograph annexed as Annexure-R1). As no objections were received within the stipulated period, the mutation order was rightfully passed."
Why it works:
Clearly denies the allegation of illegality.
Provides a logical, procedure-based explanation.
Refers to specific evidence common in revenue matters (proof of public notice).
III. Provide Documentary Evidence Where Possible (Revenue Documents)
Original Affidavit:
"The Respondent has failed to process my application for a DKT Patta for over one year, causing undue hardship."
Counter-Affidavit (With Evidence):
"Para 7: Denied. The Petitioner's application was received on 10.04.2023 and was processed in sequence. The delay was due to a requisite inquiry by the Surveyor to verify the land's status. The Patta was finally granted on 15.01.2024, and the Petitioner was informed via registered post (Receipt No. EF123456789IN annexed as Annexure-R2). A copy of the issued patta is annexed as Annexure-R3."
Why it works:
Uses official records (postal receipt, copy of patta) as concrete evidence.
Explains the reason for the delay factually, preventing accusations of wilful neglect.
IV. Follow Proper Legal Structure & Language (Using GOs & Circulars)
Bad Example (Unstructured & Emotional):
"The Petitioner's demand for an immediate NA (Non-Agricultural) assessment is ridiculous and shows a complete disregard for government rules."
Good Example (Professional & Structured):
"Para 9: Denied. The Petitioner's application for Non-Agricultural assessment is under process and cannot be expedited arbitrarily for the following reasons:
(a) As per G.O.Ms.No. 130, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 01.03.2022, a mandatory field verification by the Mandal Surveyor is required.
(b) The report from the Surveyor is still awaited, as confirmed by the official status report (Annexure-R4)."
Why it works:
Uses numbered sub-points for clarity.
Cites specific Government Orders (GOs) and internal status reports.
Avoids emotional and dismissive language, sticking to procedural facts.
V. Avoid Unnecessary Aggression or Vagueness
Bad Example (Aggressive & Vague):
"The Petitioner is a land grabber and is known for filing frivolous cases to harass government officials."
Good Example (Fact-Based & Precise):
"Para 12: Denied. The Petitioner's claim of ownership over the assigned land in Survey No. 45 is not substantiated by the Record of Rights (RoR). The said land was assigned to a landless poor beneficiary vide DKT Patta No. 567/1998 (Annexure-R5), and the Petitioner's name does not appear in the subsequent Adangal or RSR documents (Annexure-R6)."
Why it works:
Challenges the claim by referring to the primary evidence of ownership—the RoR, Adangal, and original DKT Patta.
Remains factual, unemotional, and relies on the department's own authoritative records.
VI. Examples related to Revenue Department
1. Dispute over Land Classification
1.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner’s Claim):
"The Respondent (Revenue Inspector) incorrectly classified my dry land as wetland in the Adangal, drastically reducing its value."
1.2. Strong Counter-Affidavit:
"Para 4: Denied. The classification of the land in Survey No. 78, Thimmapuram Village, as wetland is not an administrative error but is based on the Village Field Measurement Book (FMB) and soil analysis conducted by the Agriculture Department. The relevant extract from the FMB is annexed as Annexure-R7, and the soil analysis report is annexed as Annexure-R8. The classification is accurate and has been consistent for over two decades."
1.3. Why it works:
1. Rebuts Logically: States the classification is based on historical data and technical analysis.
2. Provides Evidence: Refers to the FMB (a core revenue document) and a scientific report.
3. Professional Language: Avoids blaming the petitioner and focuses on the evidence.
2. Challenge to a Government Order
2.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner’s Claim):
"The Respondent (District Collector) passed the order for land acquisition without considering my objection filed during the public hearing."
2.2. Strong Counter-Affidavit:
"Para 6: Denied. The Petitioner's objection was received and duly recorded in the proceedings of the public hearing held on 05.11.2023. The final order was passed only after a specific consideration and rejection of the Petitioner's objection on merits, as detailed in the internal noting sheet (relevant extract annexed as Annexure-R9). A copy of the hearing proceedings is annexed as Annexure-R10."
2.3. Why it works:
1. Rebuts Clearly: Directly addresses the claim of non-consideration.
2. Provides Evidence: Uses internal government file notings and official proceedings, which are powerful evidence.
3. Highlights Due Process: Demonstrates that procedure was followed, strengthening the department's legal position.
3. Dispute Regarding Assignment Land Violation
3.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner’s Claim):
"The Respondent (Tahsildar) wrongfully cancelled my assigned DKT patta for Survey No. 55 without providing a proper opportunity to be heard."
3.2. Strong Counter-Affidavit:
"Para 8: Denied. The assignment patta for Survey No. 55, Kondapuram Village, was cancelled following due process as the Petitioner violated the conditions of assignment by selling the land to a third party, which is prohibited under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
(a) The sale deed executed by the Petitioner (Annexure-R11) is proof of the violation.
(b) A show-cause notice was duly served on the Petitioner via registered post (Postal Receipt Annexure-R12) and affixture, giving him 15 days to respond.
(c) The cancellation order was passed only after considering his written submission, which failed to justify the illegal transfer."
3.3. Why it works:
1. Rebuts Logically: Justifies the cancellation by citing a specific violation of a powerful state Act.
2. Provides Evidence: Uses the petitioner's own sale deed against them and provides proof of service of the show-cause notice.
3. Structured & Professional: Uses sub-paras to break down the stages of the legal process, demonstrating procedural fairness.
4. Challenge to a Boundary Demarcation (Mentioned in FMB)
4.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner’s Claim):
"The survey conducted by the Respondent's (Mandal Surveyor's) office incorrectly reduced the extent of my land in Survey No. 90 during the boundary demarcation process."
4.2. Strong Counter-Affidavit:
"Para 10: Denied. The boundary demarcation of Survey No. 90, Rajanagaram Village, was conducted accurately based on the existing Field Measurement Book (FMB) and ground-level survey stones.
(a) The demarcation was carried out in the presence of both parties on 10.12.2023, as per the memo of proceedings (Annexure-R13).
(b) The Petitioner was present and acknowledged the boundaries at the time but raised no objections, as recorded in the said memo.
(c) The current measurement matches exactly with the dimensions recorded in the FMB (Extract annexed as Annexure-R14)."
4.3. Why it works:
1. Challenges the Claim Factually: Uses a contemporaneous document (memo of proceedings) to show the petitioner's initial acceptance.
2. Annexes Authoritative Evidence: Relies on the FMB, the primary record for land measurements, as the ultimate proof.
3. Avoids Vagueness: Precisely states how and when the demarcation was done, leaving no room for ambiguity.
5. Allegation of Wrongful Inclusion in Prohibited List
5.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner’s Claim):
"The Respondent (RDO) erroneously included my property in the list of lands prohibited for registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, causing me financial loss."
5.2. Strong Counter-Affidavit:
"Para 12: Denied. The property was correctly included in the prohibited list as it is classified as 'Government Poramboke Land' (Gramsnanam/Water Body) as per the Village Revenue Records (Annexure-R15 - Adangal Extract).
(a) The inclusion was mandated by G.O.Ms.No. 289, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 15.05.2020, which directs the prohibition of registration on all such lands.
(b) The Petitioner's claim of ownership is not supported by any registered title deed, only by a unregistered and invalid 'sada sale agreement' (Annexure-R16 - Petitioner's own document).
The prohibition is lawful and intended to protect government land from encroachment."
5.3. Why it works:
1. Refutes Clearly & Logically: Bases its position on the land's official classification and a specific Government Order.
2. Uses Petitioner's Document Against Them: Highlights the weakness of the petitioner's claim by referencing their own inadequate document.
3. Professional Language: Framed as compliance with legal mandates to protect public property, not as an arbitrary administrative action. This positions the department as the custodian of law.
6. Property Tax Dispute
6.1. Petitioner's Claim:
"The Revenue Department has incorrectly assessed my property tax, leading to a ₹50,000 overcharge. The new valuation is arbitrary and lacks proper justification."
6.2. Effective Counter-Affidavit:
"Para 3: Denied. The property tax assessment for the Petitioner's property (Assessment ID: 123456789) was conducted as per the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, and the Andhra Pradesh Property Tax Rules, 2011. The valuation is based on the prevailing market rate of ₹7,500 per sq. yard in the area, as recorded in the sub-registrar office for the fiscal year 2024-25. The detailed calculation sheet (Annexure-R1) and the government gazette notification for the market value (Annexure-R2) are attached for reference."
6.3. Why it works:
This response directly denies the claim and provides a clear, logical explanation based on specific government acts and rules. It uses two forms of documentary evidence - the calculation sheet and the official gazette notification - to prove the assessment's validity.
7. Land Boundary Dispute
7.1. Petitioner's Claim:
"The Revenue Department has wrongly demarcated my land and encroached upon a 50 sq. meter portion of my plot (Survey No. 456) in favor of the adjacent landowner."
7.2. Effective Counter-Affidavit:
"Para 5: Denied. The land demarcation for Survey No. 456 was performed by a licensed surveyor from the Department of Survey, Settlements, and Land Records on 15.07.2024, following a formal request. The demarcation was based on the original cadastral survey map of the village and the entries in the Land Register (Adangal). The official survey report with GPS coordinates (Annexure-R3) and the certified copy of the Adangal (Annexure-R4) confirm that no encroachment has occurred. The Petitioner was present during the survey and signed the official report."
7.3. Why it works:
The response refutes the claim by explaining the specific process followed, citing the official body that performed the survey. It provides two pieces of evidence - the official survey report and the Land Register - to definitively prove the demarcation's accuracy. It also highlights the petitioner's participation in the survey, adding a layer of factual credibility.
8. Refute Allegations Clearly & Logically
8.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner's Claim – Land Encroachment):
"The Respondent has illegally encroached upon 100 square yards of government poramboke land in Village Y, Mandal Z, since January 2023."
8.2. Counter Affidavit (Effective Rebuttal):
"Para 5: Denied. The land in question, falling in Survey No. 45, Village Y, is not recorded as poramboke land in the revenue records maintained by the Tahsildar’s office. As per the latest Pahani (RTC) for the year 2023–24 (AnnexureR1) and Adangal extract (AnnexureR2), the land is classified as private agricultural land, and the possession is duly recorded in the name of the cultivator. No entry in the poramboke register supports the allegation of government ownership."
Why it works:
Denies the claim with reference to official records.
Uses impersonal, factual language.
Relies on revenue documents maintained by the department.
9. Provide Documentary Evidence Where Possible
9.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner's Claim – Illegal Construction):
"The Respondent constructed a residential building on government waste land without permission."
9.2. Counter Affidavit (With Evidence):
"Para 7: Denied. The construction in question was carried out on land formally allotted to the occupant under the 'Housing for All' scheme of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as per Government Order No. HFA/AP/2021/887 dated 10.06.2021 (AnnexureR3). The layout was approved by the Municipal Authority (AnnexureR4), and possession was formally issued by the concerned MRO (AnnexureR5). The structure is therefore lawful and not on government waste land."
9.3. Why it works:
Cites official government orders and approvals.
Refers to interdepartmental coordination (Municipal Authority, MRO).
Avoids personal pronouns; focuses on administrative action.
10. Follow Proper Legal Structure & Language
10.1. Bad Example (Unstructured & Emotional):
"The Petitioner is biased and corrupt! He changed the records just to favor the Petitioner. This whole case is nonsense."
10.2. Professional & Structured:
"Para 9: Denied. The allegation of tampering with revenue records is unfounded, for the following reasons:
(a) The Pahani for the year 2023–24 (AnnexureR6) reflects the correct cultivation status, consistent with historical records.
(b) No mutation order (Intiqal) has been passed in respect of the said land during the relevant period.
(c) There is no record of any survey or correction proceedings initiated under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1885, nor any application for rectification pending before the Revenue Authorities."
10.3. Why it works:
Uses numbered, logical subpoints.
Cites statutory provisions and procedural absence.
Maintains formal, neutral, and authoritative tone.
11. Avoid Unnecessary Aggression or Vagueness
11.1. Bad Example (Aggressive & Vague):
"The Petitioner is a fraud. He always creates problems. His statements are fake."
11.2. Good Example (Fact Based & Precise):
"Para 12: Denied. The allegation of forgery in the revenue records is unsubstantiated. The entry in the Adangal reflecting the name of the person in possession was made in 2020 following a duly filed heirship claim (AnnexureR7), which was verified and approved by the Village Revenue Officer (VRO) in accordance with Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Administration Rules. No objection was received from the Petitioner at the time of mutation, nor was any appeal filed before the competent authority."
11.3. Why it works:
Focuses on procedure and official verification.
Highlights due process and lack of challenge.
Avoids personal attacks; remains factual and procedural.
12. Dispute over Land Classification
12.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner's Claim):
"The land held by the Respondent is classified as ‘forest land’ and cannot be claimed as private agricultural land."
12.2. Strong Counter Affidavit:
"Para 6: Denied. The land in Survey No. 102, Village Kothapalli, is recorded in the revenue records as 'Dry Agricultural Land' and has been assessed for land revenue since 1980. A certified extract from the Pahani and Adangal (AnnexureR8) confirms this classification. There is no government order or survey report reclassifying the land as forest land, nor has the Forest Department initiated any encroachment proceedings under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980."
12.3. Why it works:
Relies on longstanding revenue classification.
Notes absence of reclassification or enforcement action.
Uses neutral, official language.
13. Challenge to Possession Based on Inheritance
13.1. Original Affidavit (Petitioner's Claim):
"The Respondent is not the legal owner and has no right to possess the land after the death of her father."
13.2. Strong Counter Affidavit:
"Para 8: Denied. The person in possession is recorded as the legal heir of Shri Rama Rao (deceased on 15.03.2021), based on a duly filed heirship claim (AnnexureR9). The mutation entry was made in the Adangal and RTC from 2021–22 onwards by the Village Revenue Officer in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Land Administration Rules. No other claimants have filed objections, and no proceedings under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act have been initiated to question the succession."
13.3. Why it works:
Focuses on official mutation and heirship process.
Emphasizes compliance with rules and lack of challenge.
Uses formal, impersonal, and procedural language.
VII. Key Takeaways on Drafting Parawise Remarks and Affidavits:
- Always draft in official capacity - Use “the department”, “the records show”, “as per the Pahani”, etc., not “my”, “me”, or “I”.
- Deny + Explain with Procedure + Prove with Records: For every allegation, cite the specific revenue circular, GO, or rulebook that guided the action. Deny, explain, and prove each allegation using authenticated revenue records (Pahani, Adangal, RTC, mutation orders, GOs).
- Annex Authoritative Documents: Strengthen your case with Adangal, FMB, RSR, DKT Pattas, Certified copies of GOs, hearing proceedings, and postal acknowledgments.
- Provide Documentary Evidence: Support every rebuttal with irrefutable evidence. This could include documents like rent agreements, bank statements, or official communications.
- The evidence i.e., certified extracts from official records maintained by the Department should be attached as an annexure to the affidavit.
- Replace Aggression with Facts from Files: The department's own records are its strongest weapon. Cite relevant laws and rules - e.g., Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act, Land Administration Rules. Let them speak instead of emotional arguments.
- Avoid Unnecessary Aggression or Vagueness: Be factual and precise. Instead of calling the opponent a liar, challenge their claim by presenting facts or the absence of evidence, such as a lack of police reports or contradictory CCTV footage.
- Avoid emotional or aggressive language – Stick to facts, procedures, and documentary evidence.
- Structure is Key: Structure responses with paragraph wise replies and sub numbered points for clarity. Use numbered paragraphs and sub-paras (a), (b), (c) to match the structure of the original affidavit and for clarity.
- Refute Allegations Clearly & Logically: Directly address each claim made by the petitioner, explaining why it's incorrect. For example, if a petitioner claims illegal land occupation, the counter-affidavit should state that the occupancy is lawful and provide a logical reason, such as a registered lease agreement.
- Follow Proper Legal Structure & Language: Use professional, structured language instead of emotional or unstructured statements. Use numbered sub-points to clearly lay out reasons and cite specific clauses or documents.
- Use standard closing format: "The contents of Para X of the Petition are therefore denied, and the Petition is liable to be dismissed."
By adhering to these principles, counter affidavits filed by the officials will be legally sound, professionally presented, and aligned with judicial expectations.
T. Mallikarjuna Prasad
Trainer | Facilitator | Consultant
Department of Personnel & Training
Government of India
