Gavireddy Perayya, Vs The State of A.P.

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3

¶54

4

¶55

vide proc. in LTR no. 10 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass such other order.

¶56

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47333 OF 2014

¶57

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 10 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶58

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶59

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶60

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶61

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶62

WRIT PETITION NO: 37840/2014

¶63

Between:

¶64

KOLLI DEMULLAMMA, W/O APPALANAIDU AGED 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ZEENABADU (V) ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶65

...PETITIONER

¶66

AND

¶67

THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶68

5

¶69

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -

¶70

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶71

THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶72

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶73

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 115 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 and pass such other order.

¶74

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47335 OF 2014

¶75

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 115 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶76

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶77

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶78

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶79

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶80

6

¶81

WRIT PETITION NO: 37871/2014

¶82

Between:

¶83

MIDATHANA @ MIDATADA SANNIBABU, S/O APPANNA AGED 65 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM(V) ZEENABADU PANCHAYAT, ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶84

...PETITIONER

¶85

AND

¶86

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶87

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -

¶88

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶89

THE TAHASILDAR ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶90

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶91

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 129 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶92

7

¶93

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47372 OF 2014

¶94

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 129 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶95

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶96

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶97

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶98

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶99

WRIT PETITION NO: 37882/2014

¶100

Between:

¶101

KINTHADA GURUVUSETTY, S/O YERUKUSETTY AGED 62 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM (V) ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶102

...PETITIONER

¶103

AND

¶104

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶105

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -

¶106

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶107

8

¶108

4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶109

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶110

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 76 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4.

¶111

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47383 OF 2014

¶112

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 76 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶113

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶114

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶115

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶116

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶117

9

¶118

WRIT PETITION NO: 37883/2014

¶119

Between:

¶120

THATIKONDA LAXMANA,, S/O YENKI, AGED 55 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O ZEENABADU (V) ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶121

...PETITIONER

¶122

AND

¶123

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶124

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶125

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶126

THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶127

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶128

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 127 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass such other order.

¶129

10

¶130

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47384 OF 2014

¶131

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 127 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶132

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶133

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶134

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶135

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶136

WRIT PETITION NO: 37887/2014

¶137

Between:

¶138

GAVIREDDY APPARAO, S/O APPALANAIDU AGED 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE; R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM(V) ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶139

...PETITIONER

¶140

AND

¶141

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶142

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -

¶143

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶144

11

¶145

4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶146

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶147

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 7 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4.

¶148

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47389 OF 2014

¶149

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 7 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶150

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶151

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶152

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶153

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶154

12

¶155

WRIT PETITION NO: 37892/2014

¶156

Between:

¶157

GAVIREDDY KANNAMMA, W/O APPALANAIDU AGED 60YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE; R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM(V) ZEENABADU PANCHAYAT ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶158

...PETITIONER

¶159

AND

¶160

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶161

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -

¶162

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶163

THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST

¶164

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶165

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 20 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4.

¶166

13

¶167

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47394 OF 2014

¶168

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 20 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶169

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶170

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶171

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶172

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶173

WRIT PETITION NO: 37910/2014

¶174

Between:

¶175

KINTHADA CHITTIBABU, S/O LATE KINTHADA NARAYANA AGED 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM (V) ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶176

...PETITIONER

¶177

AND

¶178

THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶179

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -

¶180

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶181

14

¶182

4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶183

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶184

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 77 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass

¶185

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47419 OF 2014

¶186

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 77 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶187

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶188

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶189

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶190

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶191

15

¶192

WRIT PETITION NO: 37923/2014

¶193

Between:

¶194

RAPARTHI SANYASAYYA,, S/O BAPAYYA AGED 65 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE; R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM(V) ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶195

...PETITIONER

¶196

AND

¶197

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶198

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶199

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶200

THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶201

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶202

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 13 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass such other orders.

¶203

16

¶204

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47432 OF 2014

¶205

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 stay all further proceeding including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 13 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶206

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶207

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶208

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶209

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶210

WRIT PETITION NO: 37929/2014

¶211

Between:

¶212

YEPARAPU MODAMMA W/O DEMUDU, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O ZEENABADU (V) ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶213

...PETITIONER

¶214

AND

¶215

THE STATE OF A P REP BY, ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶216

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -

¶217

AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶218

17

¶219

4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶220

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶221

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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide proc. in LTR no. 128 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4.

¶222

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47439 OF 2014

¶223

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 stay all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent No. 3 vide LTR No.128 of 2009 dt.27-03-2010, pending disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶224

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶225

1.M V HANUMANTHA RAO

¶226

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶227

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶228

The Court made the following:

¶229

18

¶230

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶231

WRIT PETITION Nos.37838, 37840, 37871, 37882, 37883, 37887,

¶232

37892, 37910, 37923 and 37929 of 2014

¶233

COMMON ORDER:

¶234

W.P.No.37838 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.10 of 2009, dated 07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶235

W.P.No.37840 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.115 of 2009, dated 27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶236

W.P.No.37871 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.129 of 2009, dated 07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶237

W.P.No.37882 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.76 of 2009, dated 27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶238

W.P.No.37883 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.127 of 2009, dated 27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶239

19

¶240

W.P.No.37887 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.7 of 2009, dated 07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶241

W.P.No.37892 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.20 of 2009, dated 07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶242

W.P.No.37910 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.77 of 2009, dated 27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶243

W.P.No.37923 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.13 of 2009, dated 07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶244

W.P.No.37929 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.128 of 2009, dated 27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶245

As the issue in all these Writ Petitions is similar, a Common Order is being passed and the facts in brief are as follows;

¶246

20

¶247

Brief facts: The lands in question come under Jeenabadu/Peddagangavaram agency villages in Chodavaram taluk. The said villages were forming part of Madugula Zamin ex-Estate. Subsequently, these villages were taken over along with the main estate on 18.03.1953 and were notified for settlement under Section 11(1) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 vide District Gazette dated 15.10.1976.

¶248

Pursuant to the said Notification, claims were made by the tenants/ryots. The ex-mokhasadar objected to the same. After a serious contest, the Settlement Officer allowed the claims of tenants under Section 7(1) of Regulation 2 of 1970 treating them as “Ryots” under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Basing on the orders of the Settlement Officer in the year 1978, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ananthagiri had issued Pattadar Pass Books to the petitioners in the said villages.

¶249

While so, one Sri Vinayaka Girijana Seva Sangham had filed a Public Interest Litigation W.P.No.23401 of 2008 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad for cancellation of Pattas to non-tribes and for consequential action. The said Writ

¶250

21

¶251

Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate action.

¶252

Pursuant thereto, notices were issued to the Petitioners and on the date of enquiry, orders of the Settlement Officer in various cases under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 were submitted to the Agency Divisional Officer and Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) (FAC), Paderu i.e., Respondent No.3.. After perusing the order of the Settlement Officer, Respondent No.3 cancelled the Ryotwari Patta and held that the possession of the Petitioners was void under A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 and consequently directed the eviction of the Petitioners. Hence, these Writ Petitions are filed.

¶253

The counsel for the Petitioners Sri MMM Srinivas would submit that the authority under Regulation 1 of 1970 could not have cancelled the Ryotwari Pattas issued by the Settlement Officer under Regulation 2 of 1970, more so in the absence of any rival claim by any tribal. The counsel for the Petitioners pointed out the overriding effect of Section 15 of Regulation 2 of 1970 and relied upon the Judgments of this Court Pandi Ramulu v. Agent to Government,

¶254

22

¶255

E.G. District, Kakinada and Others¹ and Sirigana Venkateswarlu

¶256

v. Agent to the Government and District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and Others² in support of his contentions.

¶257

The learned Assistant Government for Social Welfare Smt.CH. Swapna Priya appearing for the Respondents argued in support of the impugned orders passed by Respondent No.3 and contended that the Pattas issued in favour of the Petitioners are contrary to Section 3 of Regulation 1 of 1970 and that the Regulation 1 of 1970 has overriding effect. The Pattas in favour of the Petitioners cannot be sustained and therefore the impugned orders need not be interfered with.

¶258

The issue that falls for consideration is as follows;

¶259

Whether the impugned orders can be sustained?

¶260

Firstly, the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended in 1970 would kick in, when there is transfer of property by an individual as apparent from the very nomenclature of the Regulation. The Section 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(a) are relevant and extracted below;

¶261

1 (1998) 1 ALD 783

¶262

2 (2013) 3 ALD 516

¶263

23

¶264

“3. Transfer of immovable property by a member of a Scheduled Tribe:- 1[(1) (a): Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts any transfer of immovable property situated in the Agency tracts by Scheduled Tribe, shall be absolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in favour of person, who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) which is composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes .

¶265

3(2)(a): Where a transfer of immovable property is made in contravention of sub-section (1) , the Agent, the Officer or any other prescribed Officer may, on application by anyone interested, or on information given in writing by a public servant, or suo motu decree ejectment against any person in possession of the property claiming under the transfer, after due notice to him in the manner prescribed and may restore it to the transfer or his heirs.”

¶266

The above provisions makes it apparent that only upon a transfer

¶267

of immovable property contrary to Section 3(1)(a), a cause of action would arise to the issue order of eviction under Section 3(2)(a). In the present cases, there was no cause of action as there was no transfer of immovable property for the Respondent authorities to

¶268

pass impugned orders under Section 3(2) (a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959. Therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.

¶269

24

¶270

Secondly, in the impugned orders, it was held that the Settlement Officer under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 had passed the impugned orders in accordance with the said regulations, but still orders for eviction of petitioners. The relevant portion of impugned order is extracted below;

¶271

“The verification the orders of the Settlement Officer revealed that the non tribals have filed their claims for sanction of Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Regulation 2 of 1970 and the Settlement Officer has considered the claimant as Ryot under Section 11 (a) of the EA Act and issued orders u/s 7 (1) of the Regulation 2 of 1970 duly considering the documentary evidences submitted by the claimants at the time of enquiry. The orders were not challenged by Appeal before the Settlement Authority. No doubt the orders of the Settlement Officer issued in the above cases are in accordance with the provisions of Sec.7 (1) of the Regulation 2 of 1970, but while issuing orders the Settlement Officer would have gone to the extent of protecting the rights of the Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled Area under the provisions of Land Transfer Regulation.”

¶272

The only reason for cancelling the Pattas was that the Settlement Officer should have protected the rights of the tribals and that the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended in 1970 have overriding effect. The reasoning is perverse and outside the scope of Regulations.

¶273

25

¶274

Thirdly, Section 3(2) (a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959 contemplates initiation of action for eviction on three scenarios i.e (i) on application by anyone interested (ii) On information given in writing by a public servant or (iii) suo motu decree ejectment against any person in possession in violation of Section 3(1) (a). In the present case, the initiation of action was pursuant to an application filed by an association by name Sri Vinayaka Girijana Seva Sangham and the question is whether the association would come within the definition of “anyone interested” to maintain an application for eviction. In the opinion of this court, the term “anyone interested” would mean only those persons having an interest in the land in question and not those who do not claim any right or interest in the land in question. Sri Vinayaka Girijana Seva Sangham does not claim any right in the land in question and therefore, the very initiation of proceedings is de hors the Section 3(2) (a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959.

¶275

Fourthly, the question whether the authority under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 could cancel the Ryotwari Pattas issued under A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 1 of 1970 fell for consideration before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in

¶276

26

¶277

Pandi Ramulu ’s case (1^st cited) and this Court in the said Judgment held that the Ryotwari patta granted under A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 could be challenged only by way of appeal and not under A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959. The said was followed in Sirigana Venkateswarlu ’s case (2^nd cited). The paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 are extracted below;

¶278

“ 5. It is well settled that once patta granted u/s 7of Regulation 2 of 1970 has become final, the same cannot be set aside by resorting to the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970.

¶279

6. In Pandi Ramulu Vs. Agent to Government, E.G. District, Kakinada and Others, wherein also patta granted in the year 1976 has become final as the same was not challenged by way of any appeal, it was held as follows:

¶280

“Section 7 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 lays down that, every ryot in the Scheduled areas to which the Regulation applies shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all cultivable lands and Section 9 of the Regulation lays down that the Settlement Officer shall inquire into the nature and history of all lands in respect of which ryotwari patta is claimed and decide it. Whenever an order under Sec. 9 is passed, if somebody feels aggrieved of the order, he has a remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 9 under which an appeal can be filed. Once the matter is settled

¶281

27

¶282

u/s 7, the only course open to the claimant against such settlement is to file an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 9. No fresh proceedings can be initiated after an order u/s 7 has been passed. There fore , the impugned orders are bad on this count.”

¶283

7. The above decision followed the earlier decision of this Court in ''N. Appa Rao v. Agency Divisional Officer (2) 1988 (2) APLJ 9 (SNRC)'' , wherein this Court held as follows:

¶284

“Patta was granted to the petitioner u/s 17(1) read with section 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970. That order has become final. Later on at the instance of the self same authorities proceedings were initiated. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities under Regulation 1 of 1959. It is now well settled that when once patta has been granted u/s 7(12) read with 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970 and became final, the possession cannot be said to be unlawful offending section 3 of Regulation 1 of 1959. There for e, the action of the authorities is without jurisdiction.”

¶285

8. In view of the above well settled proposition, the petitioner cannot be held to be in possession of the subject land in contravention of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, as he was already granted ryotwari patta under the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970.”

¶286

28

¶287

While considering a similar plea regarding Ryotwari patta granted under Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969, this court in Javvadi Samba Murthy Vs The agent to the Government, East Godavari District³ held that action under Regulation 1 of 1959 cannot be sustained. The paragraph 7 and 8 are extracted below;

¶288

“7. Now in this case patta was granted to the petitioner under Section 5. of the Muttas Abolition Regulation after due enquiry which was also confirmed in appeal. It is significant to notice that a patta can be granted under Section 5 of the Muttas Abolition Regulation only if it is proved that (a) the ryot has been in lawful possession or occupation of the land for a continuous period of not less than eight years immediately before the notified date; and (b) such possession or occupation was not void or illegal under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 195 or any other law for the time being in force. In other words, before grant of patta under this Regulation, the Authorities have to enquire into and be satisfied that the possession or occupation of the ryot is not void or illegal either by virtue of the 1959 Regulation or any other law for the time being in force which undoubtedly includes 1917 Act as well. It is true that the Authorities under both the Regulations are different. But the fact remains that the validity and lawfulness of the petitioner's possession and occupation has been gone into before granting him patta under 1969 Regulation and this has been done by the Authority competent

¶289

3 (1983(2) APLJ 96)

¶290

29

¶291

in that behalf. In such a case it is not open to an Authority under the Scheduled Areas Land Tran-sfer Regulation, 1959 to ignore the patta granted under the 1969 Regulation and say that he will go into the validity or otherwise of the petitioner's possession or occupation, as the case may be, afresh. In my opinion, this can-not be allowed. It is true that Sec. 3 (1) of the 1959 Regulation opens with a non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts", but it must equally be remembered that the Muttas Abolition Regulation, which is a subsequent regulation has been given an express overriding power over all other laws by virtue of Section 34 of this Regulation. In such a case, it is the duty of the Court to reconcile both the provisions and the proper way of doing so, in the circumstances, is to hold that once a patta has been granted after due enquiry under section 3 of the Muttas Abolition and where such order has become final, it shall not be open to the Authorities under the Land Transfer Regulation 1959 to ignore the said patta and take proceedings under Section 3 of the 1959 Regulation or to hold that such person is liable to be evicted under the provision of the 1959 Regulation. Permitting such a course would not only defeat the efficacy of the patta granted under the 1969 Regulation, but would also undo the object and purpose of Section 34 of the 1969 Regulation. There are no reasons to do so, more particularly when the 1969 Regulation contemplates an enquiry into the validity or other-wise of the possession or occupation of the ryot claiming patta with reference to the 1959 Regulation or any other law in that behalf. It would not be reasonable to hold that in spite of such an enquiry being held by the Authorities under the 1969 Regulation and in spite of their being satisfied that the

¶292

30

¶293

ryots possession was not unlawful and the grant of patta by them, the Authorities under the 1959 Regulation would be entitled to ignore all this and proceed under the 1959 Regulation to evict such a ryot.

¶294

8. The view taken by me is sup-ported by a decision of Chinnappa Reddy, J. In Sadanapalli Ramchanda and Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Palwancha District Khammam and others (1) 1978 (2) A.P.L J. 244. Though that decision was rendered with reference to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Mahals Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation,1969, the principle of the decision squarely governs this case inasmuch as the said decision is based upon section 33 of that Regulation which correspond to Section 34 of the Muttas Abolition Regulation. The learned Judge held that once there is a final order under the Mahals Abolition Regulation in favour of the petitioner, no proceedings for eviction can be taken against him under the 1959 Regulation.”

¶295

26. Similar view was also expressed in Chakka Balayyamma

¶296

and Ors Vs The Government of A.P⁴ at Paragraph 9.

¶297

“9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the following terms: So long as the pattas granted under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 are not cancelled or revoked according to law, no proceedings can be taken under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶298

4 (1984 (2) ALT 354)

¶299

31

¶300

In the light of the settled legal position, no proceedings under section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations can be initiated as long as the Ryotwari patta granted to the petitioners under A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 are not cancelled or revoked in accordance with law.

¶301