Kunja Ramudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010106332019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs: 4761/2019 & 4764/2019

¶6

W.P.No.4761 of 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

KUNJA RAMUDU,, S/O. LATE GOVINDA RAO, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, CASTE ST, R/O. BUDDULAVARIGUDEM VILLAGE, RAMANNAGUDEM POST, BOTTAYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT (TW.LTR)(REVISIONAL AUTHORITY) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU.

¶14

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) POLAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. .

¶15

GALEM APPA RAO, , S/O. SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/O. VEDANTHAPURAM, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari

¶18

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶19

2

¶20

calling for the Records pertaining to orders of the 2nd respondent herein vide G.O.Ms.No. 45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 under which the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by confirming the orders dated 18.04.2015 in SRA No. 2/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to the Government, West Godavari at Eluru who reversed the orders dated 09.05.2006 in S.R. No. 11/2006, on the file of the court of the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR), K.R. Puram as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim suspension of G.O.Ms.No. 45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent during the pendency of above writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dt. Dt.09.04.2019 passed in I.A.No. I of 20.19 in W.P. No. 4761 of 2019 in the interests of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may 'deem tit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

¶28

2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶29

3.SITA RAM CHAPARLA

¶30

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶31

3

¶32

W.P.No.4764 of 2019

¶33

Between:

¶34

KUNJA RAMUDU,, S/O. LATE GOVINDA RAO, AGED- 46 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, CASTE - ST, R/O. BUDDULAVARIGUDEM VILLAGE, RAMANNAGUDEM POST, BOTTAYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

A N D

¶37

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶38

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT (TW.LTR)(REVISIONAL AUTHORITY) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶39

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU.

¶40

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) POLAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶41

KANUMURI VIJAYA NARSIMHA RAJU, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, AGED ABOUT - MAJOR, R/O. DHARMARAOPET, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶42

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶43

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the Records pertaining to orders of the 2nd respondent herein vide G.O.Ms.No. 51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 under which the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by confirming the orders dated 18.04.2015 in SRA No. 1/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to the Government, West Godavari at Eluru who reversed the orders dated 09.05.2006 in S.R. No. 12/2006, on the file of the court of the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR), K.R. Puram as illegal,

¶44

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶45

4

¶46

arbitrary, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice

¶47

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim suspension of G.O.Ms.No. 51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent during the pendency of above writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass such other, further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶49

IA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶50

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To permit the Implead petitioner to be impleaded as party/ proposed 6th Respondent in writ petition No. 4764 of 2019 and also pending miscellaneous petitions therein in the interest of justice and pass

¶51

IA NO: 3 OF 2019

¶52

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To vacate the Interim Order dt. 09.04.2019 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2019 in W.P No. 4764 of 2019 in the interests of justice and pass

¶53

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶54

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt: 0904-2019 passed in IA.No.1/2019 in WP.No.4764/2019 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶56

1.K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶58

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶59

The Court made the following:

¶60

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶61

5

¶62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶63

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶64

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs: 4761 OF 2019 & 4764 OF 2019

¶65

C O M M O N O R D E R:

¶66

Since the parties and the contentions and rival contentions are one and the same and further, the point involved in both the Writ Petitions is also one and the same, these Writ Petitions are disposed of, by this Common Order.

¶67

The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.4761 of 2019 and 4764 of 2019 are one and the same and he filed these Writ Petitions, seeking following reliefs:

¶68

Prayer in W.P.No.4761 of 2019:

¶69

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to orders of 2^nd respondent herein vide G.O.Ms.No.45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 under which, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by confirming the orders dated 18.04.2015 in SRA No.2/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to the Government, West Godavari at Eluru, who reversed the Orders, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.No.11/2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR), K.R.Puram, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set-aside the same in the interest of justice…”

¶70

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶71

6

¶72

Prayer in W.P.No.4764 of 2019:

¶73

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to orders of 2^nd respondent herein vide G.O.Ms.No.51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 under which, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by confirming the orders dated 18.04.2015 in SRA No.1/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to the Government, West Godavari at Eluru, who reversed the Orders, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.No.12/2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR), K.R.Puram, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set-aside the same in the interest of justice…”

¶74

Contents of the affidavits filed by the Writ Petitioner in support of the Writ Petitions, in brief, are that, petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe (Koya) community and he is the absolute owner of lands in an extent of Ac.6.03 cents in R.S.No.1629/1 and Ac.4.00 cents in R.S.No.1629/2 situated at Bothayagudem village of West Godavari District; that the said lands are his ancestral property; that as the petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe, he made complaints before the Special Deputy Collector, K.R.Puram contending that 5^th respondent in both Writ Petitions, who are non-tribal, were in possession and enjoyment of petitioner’s land, in contravention of Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land

¶75

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶76

7

¶77

Transfer Regulation (Regulation 1/69 as amended by Regulation 1/70) (for brevity ‘the APSALT Regulation’) .

¶78

(b) The complaints were registered as S.R.No.12/2006 in respect of land in an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in R.S.No.1629/2 and S.R.No.11/2006 pertains to land in an extent of Ac.6.03 cents in R.S.No.1629/1 of Bottayagudem village. The Special Deputy Collector, K.R.Puram conducted inquiry and vide Order, dated 09.05.2006 allowed the complaints.

¶79

(c) Aggrieved by the orders, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram, 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions filed appeal vide SRA No.2/2010/F2 and SRA No.1/2010/F2 on the file of the Court of the Agent to the Government and District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru; that the said appeals were allowed vide Order, dated 18.04.2015, setting-aside the orders of the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, dated 09.05.2006; that aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, petitioner filed Revision Petition before 2^nd respondent and 2^nd respondent, without considering the detailed orders passed by the Primary Authority, dismissed the Revision Petitions vide G.O.Ms.No.45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated

¶80

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶81

8

¶82

15.02.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.4761 of 2019) and G.O.Ms.No.51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.4764 of 2019).

¶83

(d) The petitioner was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property till the subject land was acquired under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Package for Polavaram Project. Though there is a categorical finding by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram that 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions, who are non-tribals, were in possession and enjoyment of

¶84

the schedule land situated in an agency area and it is a contravention under Section 3 (1) of the LTR. There is no correlation with old Patta No.115 of Buddulavarigudem, H/o.Buttaigudem village with the present schedule mentioned lands i.e. R.S.Nos.1629/1 and 1629/2, and it can be said that 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions have no permission/order to purchase the land situated in an agency area.

¶85

(e) Pending Revision Petitions before 2^nd respondent, when the Land Acquisition Authorities tried to disburse compensation amount to 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1717 of 2017 before this Court and vide Order, dated 11.07.2018, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition,

¶86

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶87

9

¶88

directing the authorities not to pay the compensation either to the petitioner or to the respondent No.5 in Writ Petitions, till the disposal of Revision Petitions. Under the guise of impugned Order, respondent No.5 in Writ Petitions are making hectic efforts to get the compensation amount in respect of schedule property and if 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions are allowed to receive the compensation amount payable on the acquisition, the very purpose of filing these Writ Petitions would be defeated rendering irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petitions.

¶89

This Court vide Order, dated 09.04.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4761 of 2019 and I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4764 of 2019 granted interim Order, suspending the G.O.Ms.No.45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.4761 of 2019) and G.O.Ms.No.51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.4764 of 2019).

¶90

The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, who is respondent No.4 in both Writ Petitions filed counter-affidavit on its behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, denying the contents of the Writ Petition and contending inter alia that the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram made

¶91

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶92

10

¶93

complaints to the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram, stating that the schedule property is under possession and enjoyment of non-tribal i.e. respondent No.5 in both Writ Petitions and sought for ejectment; that the said complaints were numbered as S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006 in the Court of the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram.

¶94

(b) Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.4761 of 2019 appeared before the Special Deputy Collector and deposed that the land in R.S.No.1629/1 measuring an extent of Ac.6.03 cents in Buttaigudem village was originally belonged to tribal people viz. Kummara Kannayya and others; that the said land was purchased by Daggu Gangamma from the said tribals by obtaining permission from the then Special Assistant Agent, Kovvur vide L.Dis.C.No.1/SR of 47 and later, she sold the said property to one Kanumuri Ramakrishnam Raju and Narasimha Raju; that Narasimha Raju sold the land to one Alluri Venkata Krishnam Raju in the year 1966 and later, 5^th respondent in W.P.No.4761 of 2019 and his brothers viz. Nageswara Rao and Satyanarayana purchased the same in the year 1968 through a Registered Sale Deed No.891 of 1968 and during their family partition, the schedule land fell to the share of 5^th respondent in W.P.No.4761 of 2019.

¶95

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶96

11

¶97

(c) In respect of S.R.No.12/2006, 5^th respondent appeared

¶98

before the Court of the Special Deputy Collector and stated that his father viz. Kanumuri Ramakrishnam Raju purchased the schedule land from one Daggu Gangamma in the year 1950 and the said Gangamma purchased the same from the tribal people viz. Kummara Kannayya, Venkanna, Gangulu with the permission from the then Special Assistant Agent, Kovvur vide L.Dis.No.1/SR/47 and the schedule land fell to 5^th respondent’s share in W.P.No.4764 of 209 share through partition among their brothers.

¶99

(d) The then Special Deputy Collector observed that the schedule mentioned lands and the land covered by permission granted by the then Special Assistant Agent to the Government, Kovvur are not one and the same and concluded that the lands were acquired from the tribals at a certain point of time and disposed of, by allowing the complaints of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, ejecting 5^th respondent in both Writ Petitions vide Order, dated 09.05.2006.

¶100

(e) Aggrieved by the Order, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006, 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions filed appeals before 3^rd respondent and the said appeals were allowed vide Order, dated 18.04.2015 in SRA No.2/2010/F2 against

¶101

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶102

12

¶103

S.R.No.11/2006 and SRA No.1/2010/F2 against S.R.No.12/2006 and set-aside the Order, dated 09.05.2006 passed by the Special Deputy Collector. Aggrieved by the orders passed in the said appeals, petitioner filed Revision Petitions before the Government, but, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority were confirmed holding that there is no violation of Regulation, and the sale deeds and possession of 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions, is lawful. The petitioner failed to produce any document to establish that he is tribe and has been in possession over the schedule property; that the schedule lands are zeroyath lands and the sale transactions occurred prior to the commencement of the APSALT Regulation and the petitioner had not proved his possession and enjoyment over the schedule land before the Revisional Authority. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the Interim Order, dated 09.04.2019 passed by this Court and consequently, dismiss the Writ Petitions.

¶104

Respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.4761 of 2019 filed counter-affidavit denying the contents of the affidavit filed accompanying Writ Petition. Respondent No.5 reiterated the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4 with regard to acquiring the schedule property; that the schedule property fell to his share at the time of family partition and has been

¶105

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶106

13

¶107

in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the same till date. There is no contravention of Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT Regulation. The Regulation 1 of 1970 in the Andhra Area came into force with effect from 03.02.1970 and the sale transaction occurred in the year 1968, therefore, the provisions of above statute do not apply to the said lands.

¶108

(b) The petitioner did not file single document to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 2^nd respondent rightly dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and there is no illegality and contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid statute. Therefore, 5^th respondent has got right to claim compensation as a legitimate owner of the schedule land. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the Interim Order dated 09.04.2019 passed by this Court and consequently, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition No.4761 of 2019.

¶109

One Kanumuri Viswanatha Raju, son of 5^th respondent in Writ Petition No.4764 of 2019, who was impleaded as respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.4764 of 2019, filed affidavit denying the right, title and ownership of petitioner over the schedule lands. He too reiterated the contents of counter-affidavit filed by 4^th respondent, with regard to manner of acquiring the

¶110

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶111

14

¶112

schedule property by 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions. Earlier, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), K.R.Puram complained before the Special Deputy Collector (TW) alleging that 6^th respondent and his family members were in possession of the schedule lands in contravention of Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT Regulation and subsequently, the then Special Deputy Collector (TW) conducted inquiry and passed Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/1978 holding that there is no contravention of provisions of the aforesaid statute and no appeal was preferred against the said order. The petitioner did not file single document to prove that he is the rightful owner of the schedule property and without any right, title, interest or possession, filed frivolous cases including the present Writ Petitions. There is no illegality or contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid statute. Though respondent No.5 died on 02.07.2013, petitioner, without showing respondent No.6 as party to the proceedings, wantonly showed respondent No.5 as party, with a malafide intention to get wrongful gain. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the Interim Order, dated 09.04.2019 and consequently prays to dismiss the Writ Petition No.4764 of 2019.

¶113

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶114

15

¶115

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.4761 of 2019 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 in W.P.No.4764 of 2019 and perused the entire material available on record.

¶116

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that 5^th respondent did not obtain permission from the concerned authority to purchase the land situated in the agency area, as property in old patta No.115 of Buddulavarigudem, H/o.Buttaigudem village with the present schedule property in R.S.No.1629/1 is not one and the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare) categorically gave finding that 5^th respondent is a non-tribal and he was in possession and enjoyment of the land in an agency area, but, in the said impugned Order the same was not appreciated either by the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority.

¶117

Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.2 to 4 would contend that the schedule lands were purchased from the tribals by obtaining

¶118

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶119

16

¶120

permission from the then Special Assistant Agent, Kovvur and later, they fell to the shares of 5^th respondent in both Writ Petitions. Learned counsel would further contend that there is no violation of the Regulation and the sale deeds and possession of 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions, is lawful. The petitioner failed to produce any document to establish that he is scheduled tribe and has been in possession over the schedule property.

¶121

Learned counsel for respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.4764 of 2019 would contend that the then Special Deputy Collector (TW) conducted inquiry and passed Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/1978 which was numbered basing on the complaint of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), K.R.Puram and that there is no contravention of provisions of Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT Regulation .

¶122

A perusal of the Orders, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram, it was observed that the schedule lands and the lands covered by permission granted by the then Special Assistant Agent to the Government, Kovvur are not one and the same and held that acquiring the schedule lands from tribals is in violation of the APSALT Regulation . Aggrieved of the

¶123

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶124

17

¶125

said orders, respondent No.5 in both Writ Petitions preferred S.R.A.Nos.1/2010/ F2 and 2/2010/F2. A perusal of the Orders, dated 18.04.2015 in the aforesaid appeals passed by the Agent to the Government and District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru, goes to show that it was held that all the sale transactions in respect of the schedule lands are valid transactions and they are not hit by Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT Regulation and thereby, Orders, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram, were set-aside.

¶126

A perusal of material on record further goes to show that petitioner preferred Revision Petitions against the orders passed by the Agent to the Government and District Collector, West Godavari, before 2^nd respondent, wherein, 2^nd respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019, upheld the orders of the Appellate Authority.

¶127

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is a statutory bar on alienation of immovable property situated in the agency area and simply because acquisition of the schedule

¶128

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶129

18

¶130

lands by 5^th respondent in Writ Petitions by way of sale was held to be in order and legal, that circumstance itself would not come in the way of the statutory authority, as the petitioner being a tribal in the schedule area, his right over the schedule lands cannot be defeated. He placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Vemula Bhaskar Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others¹ , wherein it was held as thus: (Paragraph No.12)

¶131

“The Regulations were enacted through a special mechanism in exercise of powers under Schedule-V of the Constitution of India. Framers of the Constitution have evolved a special procedure for protection of the rights of the tribals in the scheduled areas. Such rights cannot be permitted to be defeated by having recourse to the hyper-technicalities. It is apt to refer here that apart from the prohibition contained under Section 3 of the Regulations, the alleged transfer in favour of Subbaiah was invalid on account of the prohibition contained under Section 38E of the Act. It is rather unfortunate that it took three rounds of litigation spread over three generations for the 5^th respondent to realize the land. Correspondingly, the family was denied the benefit of the enjoyment of the land for such a long time. The matter cannot brook any further delay.”

¶132

1 2009 (2) ALD 500.

¶133

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶134

19

¶135

Further, in G.Nageswararao @ China Nageswararao v. Government of A.P. and others² , wherein, it was held as thus: (Paragraph No.10)

¶136

“Section 11 CPC enshrines the doctrine of res judicata. Rule 8 of A.P. Agency Laws 1924 is also couched in similar terms incorporating therein the doctrine of res judicata. One of the essential postulates for the applicability of the doctrine is that „subject-matter of issue in the subsequent proceedings had been directly and substantially in issue in the former proceedings and such issue had been heard and finally decided therein‟. The basis on which the doctrine is founded is rooted in public policy, as it is apparently unjust and unreasonable to permit the same issue to be litigated afresh between the same parties or their privies. It is not sufficient if the two issues in the two proceedings are similar, but they must be the same. Physical identity of the subject-matter alone does not make the doctrine applicable. There shall be identity of the subject-matter in the juridical sense as well. The plea of res judicata cannot succeed unless the question of law or issue of fact arising in the subsequent proceeding was the subject-matter of an issue heard and finally decided in the former proceeding between the same parties or their privies.”

¶137

Further, in N.Durga Rao and another v. Special Deputy

¶138

Collector (Tribal Welfare), Kota Ramachandrapuram, W.G.

¶139

District and others , wherein it was held as thus:

¶140

“Orders passed in the first proceedings initiated under regulations will not operate as res judicata if the later

¶141

2 2007 (6) ALD 621 (DB).

¶142

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶143

20

¶144

proceedings were initiated by third party or by the same party on the basis of any further material and in the present case there is no fresh or new material warranting a contrary view than the one taken earlier.”

¶145

Further, in Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District and others v. Datla Venkapathi Raju and others³ , wherein it was held as thus:

¶146

(Paragraph No.12)

¶147

“The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Regulation make it very clear that there is a statutory bar on alienation of immovable property situate in the agency tracts by a person, whether or not such person is a member of Scheduled Tribe. The bar contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Regulation operates in presenti. Simply because in the earlier proceedings acquisition of the schedule lands by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner by way of transfer was held to be in order and legal, that circumstances itself would not come in the way of the statutory authority, like the 1st appellant, exercising the power conferred upon him under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Regulations, if he subsequently comes to know that the 1st respondent, after such acquisition, in turn, transferred the schedule lands in favour of third parties in breach of the bar contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Regulations.”

¶148

Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.4761 of 2019 and respondent No.6 in Writ Petition

¶149

3 2003 (1) ALD 386 (DB).

¶150

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶151

21

¶152

No.4764 of 2019 placed strong reliance on propositions of law laid down in Mallina Venkatarao v. District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and others⁴ , N.Durga Rao and another v. Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Kota Ramachandrapuram W.G.District and others⁵ , Payam Ankamma v. Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and others⁶ and Chinthalapati Ramalinga Raju v. District Collector, Eluru, W.G.District and another⁷ and contend that when once the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner before 2^nd respondent, to review the order of the Appellate Authority, was rejected, the petitioner is not empowered to seek the relief by way of Writ petitions.

¶153

Apparently, a perusal of material on record goes to show that earlier, vide Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/78 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru on the complaint made by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, examined the respondent No.5 in both Writ Petitions, wherein, respondent No.5 in W.P.No.4761 of 2019, deposed that he along with his two brothers purchased the schedule land from one Alluri Venkata Krishnamraju

¶154

4 2005 SCC OnLine AP 434.

¶155

5 2003 SCC OnLine AP 363.

¶156

6 2009 SCC OnLine AP 839.

¶157

7 2000 SCC OnLine AP 27.

¶158

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶159

22

¶160

on 27.06.1968 under a Registered Sale Deed and in partition of the properties, 5^th respondent got the schedule land towards his share. It was further deposed by 5^th respondent in W.P.No.4761 of 2019, that one Alluri Venkata Krishnamraju purchased the schedule land from one Kanumuri Narasimharaju on 30.09.1963 under a Registered Sale Deed and he got exhibited those Registered Sale Deeds in S.R.No.39/78 as Exs.B4 and B5. It was further deposed that father of 5^th respondent in W.P.No.4764 of 2019 viz. Kanumuri Ramakrishnam Raju purchased the schedule land from one Daggu Gangamma in the year 1950 and the said Gangamma purchased the same from the tribal people viz. Kummara Kannayya, Venkanna, Gangulu with the permission from the then Special Assistant Agent, Kovvur vide L.Dis.No.1/SR/47.

¶161

A perusal of the documents that were exhibited in S.R.No.39/78 goes to show that the schedule land in question was under the enjoyment of tribals by name Kunja China Gangulu and his sons and they sold it to Kummara Dulappa on 29.06.1936 and the sons of Kummara Dulappa sold the said land on 10.02.1947 to one Daggu Gangamma, a non-tribal, after obtaining permission from the Assistant Agent, Kovvur vide L.Dis.C.No.1/SR of 47, dated 01.01.1947 and later, she sold the said land on 18.12.1950 under

¶162

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶163

23

¶164

Registered Sale Deed, dated 18.12.1950 to Kanumuri Ramakrishnamraju and Narasimharaju, who are non-tribals, and from then onwards, the schedule lands were in occupation of nontribals continuously. Indeed, the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare vide Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/78 observed that all the transactions are valid transactions and held that they are not hit by Section 3 (2) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation I of 1970 and thereby, dismissed the petition. Surprisingly, again S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006 were numbered against respondent No.5 in Writ Petitions on the pretext that the schedule area is in possession and enjoyment of non-tribals in contravention of Section 3 (1) of the APSALT Regulation. Indeed, lucid explanation was given by the then Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru in its Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/78 as to how the petitioner is not entitled to the schedule property. When once the matter was already adjudicated by an authority that acquiring the schedule land by respondent No.5 in both Writ Petitions does not hit by Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT Regulation, reviewing the same by this Court in Writ Petitions does not arise. Furthermore, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the Order, dated

¶165

SRK, J W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019

¶166

24

¶167

27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/78 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru and the said order is still subsisting. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are not tenable and this Court is of the firm opinion that there are no merits in the Writ Petitions and they are deserved to be dismissed.

¶168

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed confirming the Orders of 2^nd respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.4761 of 2019) and G.O.Ms.No.51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.4764 of 2019). Consequently, the interim Orders, dated 09.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4761 of 2019

¶169

and I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4764 of 2019, stand vacated.

¶170

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶171

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.

¶172

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶173

15^th October, 2025.

¶174

DNB

Kunja Ramudu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunja Ramudu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katam Jaya Prakash Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanthala Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The Ex Hill Zamindar and Mokasadars Samkeshema Sangam Vs the Principal Secretary

Datla Srinivasa Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chirumamilla Nagarani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunja Ramudu, Vs the State of Ap