Disposed

Shaik Rafi Ahmed and 2 Others v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC5 Jan 2023WP/22656/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions challenging an enquiry into pattadar pass books for non-tribals and a suit for recovery of possession in scheduled areas, holding that factual issues in the suit cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 and granting liberty to the petitioners to submit explanations before the authorities.

What did the court decide?

W.P. Nos. 2470/2020 and 40600/2022 disposed of with liberty to file explanation before the authorities; W.P. Nos. 22656/2020 and 1201/2022 dismissed as infructuous.

Shaik Rafi Ahmed and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

TH. HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS: 2470 22656 0F 2020 1201^AND 40600 0F²⁰²²

¶8

W.P.No.2470 of 2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Shaik Khatum Bee, W/o Late Shaik Madhar, aged about 70^years. Occupation ; Agriculture. Sitarampuram Village, Mulakalapalli^Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶11

Shaik Rafi Ahmed. S/o Shaik fvladhar, aged about^{47 yea.s, Occupation} ; Private Service. Sitarampuram Village, Ivlulakalapalli Mandal,^Bhadradri, Kothagudem District.

¶12

Shaik Shafa Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar, aged about^{45 years,Occupation;} Agriculture, Sitarampuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal,^Bhadradri, Kothagudem District.

¶13

Shaik Jabi Ahmed, S/o Shaik lr4adhar, Aged 40^years, Occ ;^{Private Service,} Sitarampuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal,^{BhadradriKothagudemDistiict.}

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telangana,^Rep by^{its Principal SecretaryTribal Welfare} Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Agent to Government and The^{DistrictCollector, Bhadradri Kothagudem} District.

¶18

The Special Deputy Collector^{Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam,Bhadradri,} Kothagudem District.

¶19

The Tahasildar, Mulkalapally Mandal,^Bhadradri, Kothagudem^District.

¶20

Sunnam Chanti, S/o Sunnam^{Bazaru,Aged about 32 years, Occ Agriculture,} Seetarampuram Village,^{MulkalapallyIVIandal. Bhadradri,Kothagudem} District.

...RESPONDENTS

Contd....2

Petition under Arricre 226 of the constitution of lndia prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High c;urt may be pleased to issue a writ, order or drrectron more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus ulArr 226 of constitution of rndia decraring the action of the respondent No 2 District coIector directing an action to be taken vide Rc.No.E3/5/1 15i2019 dated 30-.1 l-2019 on issuance of pattadar pass goor io Non-Tribal in contravention of Act 1 of 1970 as illegal, Arbitrary without power and without jurisdiction.

¶25

l.A.NO:1 OF 2020

¶26

Petrtion under section 151 cpc prayrng that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine Hign court may oe pteaseJ to grant stay of all further proceedjngs pursuant 1o tne enquiry ordered by collector/Responde nt No.2 herein vide Rc.No.E3/5/1 lslzolg oateo so-tt-zotg including the proceedings of LRT case No.g6/20r 9/MKp before respondent No.3 pending disposal of writ petation.

¶27

|.A.NO:2 OF 2O2o

¶28

Between:

¶29

Sunnam Chanti. S/o Sunnam Bazaru,Aged about 32 years, Occ Agriculture, seetarampuram Virage. Murkarapaly MIndar, ehaoratiii xottraguotmbGtiitt

¶30

....vAcATE^pETtnoNER / st, RESpoNDENT

¶31

AND

¶32

1.Smt. Shaik Khatum Bee, Wo Late Shaik Madhar, aged about 70 years, Occupation ; Agriculture, Sitarampuram Village, Mutakatap;lh tritanaat, Bnaijridri Kothagudem District.

¶33

2.shaik Rafi Ahmed, s/o shaik Madhar, aged about 47 years. occupation ; private !grvjce'^{sitarampuramVirage. Muraiarlpaili} Mandarl enaaiid.i-koih;il;;; District.

¶34

3.Shaik Shafi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar, aged about 45 years. Occuoationl Agriculture, Sitarampuram Vilage. Mutakatapatf Ma;d;1. Bh;d';;; K;fi;fii;; District.

¶35

4 shaik Jabi Ahmed, s/o Shaik Madhar A_ged 40 years, occ , private service, sitarampuram vilrage, Murakarapali Mandar, Enadraorl xotnaguoem oisiict --^'--'

¶36

,..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶37

s.The state of relanoana Rep by its principar secretary Tribar werfare Department Secretariat, Hyderabid.

¶38

Contd....3

¶39

-J

¶40

6.The Agent to Government and The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶41

7 The Special^Deputy Coltector Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri, Kothagudem Diskict

¶42

8.The Tahasildar, Mulkalapally IVlandat, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District.

¶43

...RESPONDENTSiRESpONDENTS 5 ro 8

¶44

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 Stay passed in W.p.No.24TO|2O2O dt:13_2_2O2b, by dismissing the WP, in the interest of justice.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.T.SHARATH

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No..l : Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶47

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No.S : SRI.M.M.M.SRINIVASA RAO

¶49

W.P.NO; 22656 OF 2020

¶50

Between:

¶51

1 Shaik Rafi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar, Aged about 4l years, Occupatron ; Private Service. Sitarampuram Village,^{-Mulakalapalh'Mandal,} Bhadradri Kothagudem.

¶52

2 Shaik Shafi Ahmed. S/o Shark Madhar, Aged about 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture Sitarampuram Vi age, Mulakatapalli tvtanOit, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

¶53

3 Shaik Jabi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar, Aged.4O years, Occ; private Service, Sitarampuram Village, Mulakalapalli tVlandal. Ko iagudem.

¶54

...PETITIONERS

¶55

AND

¶56

The State of Telangana. Rep by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶57

The Superintendent of Police. Bhadadri, Kothagudem District.

¶58

The Station House Officer, Mulkalapalli pS, Bhadadri Kothagudem.

¶59

- !a-O{e Hanumantha Rao @ Kangaru, S/o Muthaiah, years 55 years, R/o Seetarampuram Village. Mutkalapa y Mandat, Bfiadradri (othagudem District.

¶60

Contd....4

¶61

-4

¶62

5 Vadde Susheela Wo_Bazaru Ageo S0 years. R/o Seetarampuram Village, IVlulkalapally I/andal Bhadradrr kothagudem Drstrrc:

¶63

Sunnam Babu Rao, S/o Chrna Rajulu, Aged about 45 years, R/o Seetarampuram Vr age Mulkatapatty UinOat Bhadraln (othagudem Drstrict.

¶64

Sunnam Chanti, S/o. Sunnam .Bazaru, Aged about 32 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Seetarampuram Viltage. Mutkatapail/ ManCai [na'Oraart K;thrd;;;;'District

¶65

...RESPONDENTS

¶66

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'cJurt may oe pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry in the nature of writ of I/andamus ulArt 226 of the constitution of rndia decraring the in action of the respondent No.2 i.e the superintendent of police and the^-Station House officer i.e respondent No 3 in not providing aid for implementing the order of in]unctir:n pursuant order granted by the competent court i.e sft Asst ngent ano sub divisional Magistrate, Mobile court Bhadrachalam in lA No 13712d in os 147 of 20 in lA No 14712020 in oS r51 of 20 and rA No 142t20202 in os is2 of zo2o, as illegal, Arbitrary and against principres of naturar justice and amount to abdication of duties. consequenUy direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide proteclion fo-r- imprementing the orders passed Spr Asst Agent and sub oivisional Magistrate, Mobile court Bhadracharam in LA Nio 137 t2o in os 147 of 20 in rA No 14712o2o in os 151 of 20 and rA.No 142r2o2o2 in oS 152 of 2020, on the file of spl Asst Agent and sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile court Bhadrachalam, the petitioners.

¶67

I.A.NO:1 OF 2020

¶68

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, ine u,gn court may oe preiieJ to direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to take immediatl action for proriirng aid fo,. rmplementing the orders passed.by.spr Asst Agent and sub divisionar Nit;gia;rG . Mobile court Bhadracharam in rA No 137r20 in oS 147 of 20 in lA No 14112020 in OS 151 of 20 and lANo 142t2O202 in OS i52 ot 2O2O,on the file of Spi A;t Agent and sub Divisionar Magistrate ; Mobire court Bhadracharam, the petitioners.

¶69

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.T.SHARATH

¶70

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME

¶71

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : SRI.M.M.M.SRtN|VASA RAO

¶72

Co ntd.. ..5

¶73

-4-

¶74

W.P.NO: 1201 OF 2 022

¶75

Between:

¶76

SunnamChanti, S/o Sunna m BazarulVl. Age 33 years, Occ :Aonculture R/o Sitarampuram vrlage Muarakarapari ft,rano"ir ehiorJJr;i(6tnrg-rd", ii,'.ir]Ji]" "

¶77

AND

¶78

...PETIT|ONER

¶79

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶80

2 The District colector, Kothagudem Town, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶81

The Revenue Divrsional Officer paloncha Town, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶82

The Senior Assistant, O/o Sub Divrsional lvlagistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachatam. B ha d rad rikotha g udem Districi.

¶83

The Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶84

The station House officer, Murakarapalri ps, Bhadradrikothagudem Dist.

¶85

7 shaik Rafi Ahmed, S/o shark Madhar Age.47 years, occ. private service R/o sitarampuram viilage, Muarakarapaili fVindar,^{'anior"oiriotnagua".} oiiirili-

¶86

Shaik Shafl Ahmed, S/o.Shaik fVadhar Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o sitarampuram vilage, Muarakarapaili Ma"ndar, 6h;dr;dnkoih;gua"rn-diitri"t

¶87

shaik Jabi Ahmed, s/o-shaik Madhar Age.40 years, occ.private service R/o Sitarampuram viIage, Muarakarapari [/indar,'Bh;dradrikoih;g;o"r'ristiiii

¶88

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶89

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'c&rt miy oe pleased to issue writ or drrection preferabry writ of rirandaius aectarinj ttre action of the respondents 5 to-9 in interfering with the possession and enjoy-ment of the- petitioner in respect of the rand in 5y. N0. 1 70, 1z 1 , 1r2 to an extent of Ac.8-37 cents situated at Sitharampuram vifiage, Murakaraparir rr,lanoai ot Bhadrad rikothagudem Dist., and the Memo dt.t5li/2021 issued by tne reiineJ sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrachalam, wherein indicated that th; files relates to l.A.No. l3712020 in o.s.No.14Tt2o20, t.ANo.14r2o20 in o.s,No.151/2020 and in 1.A.No.14212020 in o.s.No.152l202o were mispraced in the office, as illegal is illegal, arbitrary, viorative of principres of naturar justice and arso violative of Art.300-A of constitution of lndia and consequenily direct the 4th respondent to furnish the certified copres of the r.A.No.13712020 in O.S.No.14712020, LA.No.147t2020 in O S No. iS1/2020 and in l.A No.1 42t2O2O in o.s.No.152l2o20 lo the petitioner and further direct not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner tn any manner.

Contd....6

-6-

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tne Hign court may oe preaseJ to stay the drspossession of the petitroner from the tino in sy trto i to,^'lii,1i ii an extent of Ac.8-37 cents. situated at Sitharampuranr Village, Vutatatapaiil Mandal of Bhad radrikothag udem Dist., pending the disposar of writ petition in the interest of Justice

¶94

|.A.NO:2 OF 2022

¶95

Between

¶96

1 Shaik Rafi Ahnred, S/o. Shaik Madhar Age.47 years, Occ. private Service R/o Sitarampuram Viilage, Mualakalapalli M;ndai. 'eniJi, OntoinrguOem Oiltrici^-

¶97

2 Shaik Shafi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar Age.45 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o sitarampuram viilage, Muarakataparti tvta"noar, 6nioiaJntotniguoembiitirct

¶98

3 Shaik JabiAhmed, S/o Shaik MadharAge.4O years, Occ.private Service R/o sitarampuram Vi age, Muarakaraparrr r/indar,'Btii-ora-oi"irotnagudem District.

...PETITIONERS/

RESPONDENT No.7 to 9

AND

Sunnam Chanti S/o Sunnam Bazaru, Age 33 years, Occ .Agriculture, R/o srta rampura m Vilaoe turrarakara pa iii HlI"ntil aniii"o ri-rotna guaem District.

¶103

.,.RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶104

2 The State of reranoana Rep.by its principar secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶105

3 The District corrector, Kothagudem Town, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶106

The Revenue Divisional Officer paloncha Town, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶107

The Senior Assistant. O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobrle Court, Bhadrachatam. BhadradrikothaguOem DistrLi.^{-' -''"-'}

¶108

TheTahsildar, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶109

The Station House Officer, Mulakalapalli pS, Bhadradrikothag udem Dist.

...RESPONDENTSi

RESPONDENT 1 to 6

Contd....7

Petjtion under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted in LA. No. 1 of 2022 in WP 1 201 ot 2022 dl 7lO1l2O22 is liable to be vacated in the interest of justice.

¶115

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.M.M.M.SRINIVASA RAO

¶116

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶117

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : G.P FOR HOME

¶118

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 9 : SRI.T.SHARATH

¶119

W.P.NO: 40600 0F 2022

¶120

Between:

¶121

'1. Shaik Rafi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar aged about 51 years, Occ Private Service, R/o Sitarampuram Village, Mulakalapalli IVlandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District 5071 15

¶122

Shaik Shafi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar, aged about 49 years. Occ Agriculture. R/o Sitarampuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District 5071 15.

¶123

Shaik Jabi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar, Aged 45 years, Occ Private Service, R/o Sitarampuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District 5071 15.

¶124

...PETITIONERS

¶125

AND

¶126

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of Social welfare Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶127

The agent to Government (Dist Collector) at Kothagudem , Bhadadri, Kothagudem Dist 507101 .

¶128

Sunnam Chanti, S/o Sunnam Bazaru, Aged about 34 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. H.No.9- 10, Seetarampuram Village, Mulkalapally Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District 5071 15.

¶129

..RESPONDENTS

¶130

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature writ of Prohibition U/Art 226 of the Constitution of lndia, prohibiting the respondent No.2 from proceeding further in the OS No 93 of 2021 and annul the same

¶131

Contd - .. .8

¶132

I.A.N O:1 OF 2022

¶133

Petitron Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS 93 of 2021 before the Respondent No 2/ agent to Govt/Co lector^pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶134

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.T.SHARATH

¶135

Counsel for the Respondent No.l : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶136

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶137

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : -

¶138

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶139

.I'IIE TIONOT,IRAI}LE SMT..ITJSTICE P. MADIIAVI DEVI

¶140

WRI'I'I'ETIilON N0.2470^()F- 2020 wRtT I't,t'tlTtoN No.22656^()F 2020. WRIT PETI'IION NO.I2OI OI'2022

¶141

ANI)

¶142

WRIT PETITION NO.,10600 OF 2022

¶143

COMMON ORDEIT

¶144

Sincc cornmon issues arise in these writ petitions. thel,are being

¶145

disposed of by way of this common and consolidated order.

¶146

W.P.No.22656 of 2020 was filed seeking a Writ of Mandarnus declaring the action of respondent No.2, i.e., the Supcrintendent of [)olice and respondent No.3, i.c.. the Station Flouse Otficer in not providing aid for implementing the order of injunction pursuant to the order granted by the competent Coufl, i.e., Special Agent and SubDivisional Magistrate, Ivlobile Court, Bhadrachalam in l.A.No. 137 ol 2020 in O.S.No.l47 of 2020, in I.A.No.l47 o12020 in O.S.No.l5l of 2020 and in I.A.No.l42 of 2020 in O.S.No.l52 of 2020, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶147

W.l'.Nos.1.17011020. 11656, l02tt 1201,20ll ar)d 40600 l0ll

¶148

¶149

The resporldenl No.7 in W.P.No.22656 of^{2020 l'iled}

¶150

W.P.No.I 20 I ol lrll2 sccl..ing a Writ of Mandatr.rus^{d:claringthc action} of respondents 5 to 9 therein in^{interfering with the possessiolland} enjoyment ol thc petitioner therein in respect of^{the land in Survey} Nos.l70. I 71 and 172 to an extent of^{Ac.8.37 cents situatedat} Sitharampuram Village. Mulakalapalli Mandal^ofBhadradri- Kothagudern District arrd the Memo dt.^{15.11.2021 issuedby the Sub-} Divisional Magistratc, Bhadrachalam^{with respect to misplacement of} files relating to I...No. 137 ol 2020ⁱⁿ O.S.No.^{147 of 2020,I.A.No.147} of 2020 in O.S.No. 151 of 2020 and^{I.A.No.l42 of 2020 in O.S.No.l52} of 2020, as itlcgal and arbitrary and consequently^{to directrespondent} No.4 to lumish certifiecl copies of I.A.No.137^{of 2020 in O.S.No.147of} 2020; I.A.No. 117 of 2020 in O.S.No.151 of^{2020 and I.A.No. 142 of} 2020 in^().S.No.152 of 2020 to the petitioner and^{furtherto direct not to} interfere with the possession of the petitioner^and to^{passsuchother} order or ordcrs as this Court may deem fit and^{proper in the} ct,Estances ol'the case.

¶151

\.l'.Nos.2-170 1010. 12656 lul0 ll0lil02l rnJ^{0(100 l0ll

¶152

¶153

ln W.P.No.2470 of 2020, the petitioners claiming to be the o,'ners and possessors ol the subject property are seeking a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of respondent No.2 District Collector in directing an action to be laken uirle Rc.No.E3/5/l 1512019 dt.30.l 1.2019 on issuance of^pattadar pass book to a non-tribal in Contravention of Act I of 1970^(Regulation I ol 1970) AS illegal, arbitrary and without power and without jurisdiction and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances ofthe case.

¶154

In W.P.No.40600 of 2022, the petitioners clairning to be the successors- in-interest ol the subject propefty are seeking a Writ moreⁱⁿ the nature of a Writ ol Prohibition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India prohibiting respondent No.2 therein from^{proceeding further in} O.S.No.93 of 2021, on the file of the Agent to the Govemment at Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District and to annul the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and^proper in the circurnstances ol the case.

¶155

\'.1'Nos ll70'20]i) l 16i(r l0l0 1l0l l0ll and^.1060(i l0ll

¶156

¶157

Briel lacts leading to the liling olthe above Writ Petitions are that the petitioners (non-tribals) claimcd to be thc owners and possessors of, the agriculturai lands in Sun,ey Nos. 170, 171,, 172, l92l2l ,24115 and 24116 admeasuring Ac. 14.33 gts., situated at Sitarampuram Village of Mulakalapalli Mandal ot' Bhadradri-Kothagudern District and the said land had been purchascd by their predecessors- in-title under registered sale deeds dt.20.01.1970 and 24.03.1975 from Vunnam Poornaiah and Venkateswarlu. I'he sale deeds were executed in favour of Mohd. Ibrahim and Shaik Madhar. rvho is the son-in-law olMohd. Ibrahim. It is subrnitted rhat vide proceedings No.ROR/127117 dt.12.05.2017, ROR/I28/17 dt.12.05.2017 and ROR/129117 dr.12.05.2017, the subject land was rnutated in thc names ol the petitioners (non{ribals) who are the wife and sons ol Shaik Madhar.

¶158

It is submitted that in the year 1974, on infonnation that the land was transferred to non{ribals and therefore it was in violation of Regulation I of 1959. a case was taken up suo motu by the Special Clade Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Khammam and the same was registered as Case No.474 of 1974. The said petition was dismissed vide

¶159

W.l'. Nos.2.170, 1020. 21656,2 010 l20l t2022 and 40600i2022

¶160

¶161

order d1.06.07.1974 holding that the sale made on 26.01.1961 was not hit by the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation I of I959.

¶162

'Ihereaftcr, another case was initiated against Mohd. Ibrahim and his son-in-lau, Mohd. Madhar Saheb on the report ol the Tahsildar, Kothagudern complaining that non-tribal respondents are in occupation of tribal lands in conrravention of Regulation I of 1959, which rvas taken on file as Clase No.l8l/79lKgml350l79lKgm and, 234l79lKgm The said proceedings were also dropped vide orders dr.30.12.1981 holding that the earlier sale transactions took place prior to promulgation olthe Regulation I of 1959

¶163

Subsequently, another case was initiated on the report of the Special Deputy Revenue Inspector dt.0l . I 2. 1988 against Mohd. Ibrahim and Shaik Madhar and the same was registered as Case No. 1733/88/Mkp, and vide orders dt.25.09.1990, the same was dismissed. It is subrr.ritted that one perscn by name Kesari Venkateswarlu had fited LTR Case No.223l95/MKP and the same was dismissed vide orders cit.01.06.1995. Thereafter, one Sri Sunnam Bazaru, father of Sunnam Chanti, the peririoner (tribai) in W.p.No. l20l ol 2022, filed a petition

¶164

\ .P.Nos.2J70/2020. 11656r1020 I )0 l'2022 and 40600/2012

¶165

¶166

before the sanle alrthorities. rvhich \vas taken on filc as LTRll164l97 ft\4kp tlfiich s'as also dropped as bcirlg res .judicatd vide orders dt.22.10.1997 whilc referring to all the earlier proceedings. It is submitted that the Agent to Government (District Collector), Kothagudern u,ithout application ol mind vide letter dt.30.1 i.2019, on the strength of the represcntation rnade by one Sri Sunnam Mallaiah and others, directed enquiry into the aspect of issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour ol the petitioners^{(non-tribals).} the wife and sons of Shaik Madhar, on the ground that the transactions are in contravention ol' Regulation I ol' 1970. Consequently, an enquiry was ordered by the Agent to Government, Kothagudem vlde letter Rc.No.E3l5/1 l512()19 dt.30.11.2019. Chatlenging the same, the wife and sons of Shaik Madhar have filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2470 of 2020 and by ordcr dt. 13.02.2020, this Court suspended the proceedings of the Agent to Government, Kothagudem and thereafter, three civil suits in O.S.No. 147 of 2020, O.S.No. I5l of 2020 and O.S.No.l52 of 2020 werc filed b1, Shaik Jabi Ahmed, petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.40600 of 2Q22 and pelitioner No.4 in W.P.No.2470 of 2020, along^u,ith interlocutory applications in I.A.No.137 of 2020, I.A.No. 147 of²⁰²⁰

¶167

\'. I'.nvos.2.l 70, 1010. 2l(r5 6, 2010 I 20 I / 2022 at\d 4 0600 12022

¶168

¶169

and l.A.No. l4l ol- 2010 respectively in the Court of Spccial Assistant Agent and the Sub-Divisional Magistratc, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, who vide orders dt.14.07.2020 granted interim injunction. It is submitted that Sunnarn Chanti, unofficial respondent No.3 in W.P.No.40600 ol 2022 and unofficial respondent No.5 in W.P.No.2470 of 2020, filed O.S.No.93 of 2021 bcfore the Agent to Govemment, Kothagudern lor recovery ol possession on 01.10.2021. In the meanwhile, Sunnam Chanti (pctitioner-tribal) challenged the orders in I.A.No. 137 ol 2020, I.A.No. 147 ol 2020 and I.A.No.l42 of 2020before this Court in C.R.P.Nos.575. 590 and 592 of 2022 and this Court vide separate orders dt.2I.01.2022, set aside the interim orders and directed fresh consideration ol the matter in the three civil suits filed by the petitioners. Therealter, vide ord,ers dt.22.10.2022, orders were passed in all the three suits afresh by granting injunction in favour of the writ petitioners (non-tribats). Apprehending that by virtue of entertaining suit in O.S.No.93 of 2021. the Agent to Govemment at Kothagudem would @ss^{ordersin lavour ol' unolllcialrespondents even though the suit has} attained finality in vicw of thc earlier proceedings, W.P.No.40600 of 2022 has been t'iled seeking a Writ of Prohibition, white W.P.No.2470

¶170

W.l'.Noit.2.l?0/1010. 11656i1020 ll0l 20ll and 40600 1022

¶171

¶172

of 2020, W.I'}.No.22(r56 ol 2020 and W.P.No.l20 I ol 2022 have been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned therein as nan'ated above. In view of the same. all these Writ Pctitions were taken up toElether and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order

¶173

At the time ol hearing, the learned counsel lor both^{the parties} submitted that the orders in t.A.No. 137 of 2020^{in O.S.No.l47} of^2020; I.A.No. 147 of 2020 in O.S.No. l5l of 2020 and^{I.A.No. 142} of^{2020 in} O.S.No.152 of 2020 on the file of the Special^{Assistant Agent and Sub-} Divisional Magistrate, Mobite Court, Bhadrachalan.r have^been challenged in C.R.P.Nos.575, 590 and 592 of^{2022and this Corxtvide} separate orders dt.2 I .0 4.2022, set aside the^{interirn orders in the said} I.As. and directed fresh consideration of^{the matter} in^{the threecivil} suits filed by the respondents therein, i.e.,^{petitioners herein(non-tribals)} and therefore, W.P.No.22656 of 2020 and^W.P.No.120l of^{2022 ttled} seeking relief on the basis of the orders^{in the three IAs.,havebecome} infructuous.

¶174

\V.P.N,-rs.2l?0r2010. ll656i20l(l ll0 l,'2022 and^..10600i 2021

¶175

¶176

l l. Recorciing the abovc submission ol the learned counsel for both parties, W.P.No.22656 of 2020 and W.P.No. l20l of 2022 are dismissed as in fructuous. No ordcr as to costs.

¶177

As regards the other trvo Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P.No.2470 of 2020 and W.P.No.40600 ol'2022. the leanrcd counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in Survcl, 56r.170, l7l and 172 admeasuring Ac.6.07 gts., situated at Sitharampuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudern District originally belonged to one Sunnam Rajulu, S/o Yarrappa. Thc said propefty was sold by Sunnam Rajulu, S/o Yarrappa to Vunnanr Purnaiah and Vunnam Venkateshwarulu vide sale deed executed on 26.0 I .1961 . Subsequently, Mohd. Ibrahim and his son-in-law Shaik Madhar Saheb purchased the said land from Vunnam Pumaiah and Vunnarn Venkateshwarulu under a registered sale deed dt.24.03.197 5. Shaik Madhar is the hLrsband and lather of the petitioners (non+ribals) in W.P.No.2470 ol 2020 and W.P.No.40600 of 2022. On infbrmation that the Iand was transl'erred to non-tribals and therefore it was in violation of Regulation 1 of 1959, a case was taken up stro nlotu by the Special Grade Deputy Co[lector (Tribat Welfare), Khammam and

¶178

-t-

¶179

\i.P.\os.l l ii)'1010. 21656, l0l0 120 I^/l0ll anci^.10600.'1011

¶180

¶181

the same \tv'as reqistered as Case No.474 ol 1974. On issuance of notice, both parties appeal'ed. T'hc respondents therein, i.c., Vunnant Purnaiah and Vunnam Venkateshwarulu produced the salc deed cxecuted by Sunnam Rajulu in their favour and also produced land revenue receipts from l9(r I onwards. During the enquiry, the tribal Sunnarn Rajulu admitted the said u'ansfer ol the land long back. I Ic also testified and recognised the sale deed. Recording the deposition of Sunnarn Ra.iulu and aiso on perusal of the documents produccd, the Special Grade Deputy Collector^(''Iribal Welfare) held that the transler of the scheduled land took place belbre promulgation of the A.P. (Scheduled Area) Land Transfer I{egulation I of 1959 and he did not see any reason to interfere with the possession of the respondents therein and accordirrgly the case was dismissed. No appeal was filed against the said order dt.06.07.1974.

¶182

Thereafter, another case was initiated against Mohd. Ibrahim and his son-in-law Mohd. Madar Saheb on the report of the Tahsildar, Kothagudcm cornplaining that nontribal respondcnts are in occupation of tribal lands^jn contravention of Regulation I ol- 1959. l'hereafter, show-cause notices under Rule 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled ,Ar-ejls^{Land Tlansler Rules.1969 wereissued to the parlies. tlothparries}

¶183

---f

¶184

\'.1'. r., o;.2-170. 1020. 22{156/2020 ll0 I^,2011 and^.10600/2022

¶185

¶186

appeared and Sunnam Ycrrappa, the grandson ol thc petitioner therein, had attended the Coun and deposed that he does not know when the suit lands were sold to the r.espondents therein. One of the respondents therein Mr. Mohd. Ibrahirn attended the Court and deposed that he and his son-in-law purchased the suit land and that the same was already considered by the Court in Case No.474 of 1974. Having gone through the order, the Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare) held that the subject matter had been disposed of in favour ol Vunnam pumaiah and Vunnam Venkateshwarulu and that no further action was necessary. He accordingly dropped the proceedings.

¶187

Subsequently, another case was initiated on the report of the Special Deputy Revenue Inspector dt.Ol.l2.1988 against Mohd. lbrahim and Shaik Madhar and on issuance of notices, both the parties attended and after going through the decision of previously decided case in Case No. 181 of 1979, the proceedings were again dropped vide orders dt.25.09.1990. Subsequently, one Kesari Venkateswarlu, S/o Mallaiah had filed a petition before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Paloncha that a non-tribal was in possession of a land in the scheduled area. Again, a notice rvas issucd to Sri Shaik Madhar, the

¶188

\:. P.Nos.l.i70 2010. l16i6 ltll0 l20li20ll and^.l()600 2012

¶189

¶190

husband and f:rther ol the petitioners in W.P.Nos.40600 o1'2022, 12656 ol 2020 and 2470 ol 2020, and after going tlx'ough the carlier proccedings, the proceedings therein were dropped. In the year 20 19, on the representation of some of the villagers along with S. Mallaiah and others, t direction was given to the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli on 30.1 I .20 l9 kr look into the representation of S. Mallaiah and others and to enquire into it in detail with reference to field and rccord and subn-rit a report. This direction was challenged by the wife and sons of Shaik Madhar in W.P.No.2470 of 2020 and this Court uide orders dr.13.02.2020 had granted interim stay of the said direction.

¶191

Whilc the matter stood thus, Sunnam Chanti (i.c., petitioner in W.P.No. 1201 of 2022, respondent No.3 in W.P.No.40600 ol 2022, respondent No.5 in W.P.No.2470 of 2020 and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.22656 of 2020) has filed O.S.No.93 of 2021 before the Agency Court at Kothagudem alleging that the petitioners in thc above three Writ Petitions arc non-tribals and are in illegal occupation olthe lands in agency arca.

¶192

\'.P.Nos.l-170 1020. 116i6rl020 ll0 I l0ll aod^-10600/2022

¶193

¶194

Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioners (non-tribals) subrnitted that the issue olthe right of the petitioncrs who are non-tribals has already been considered by the Authority on lbur earlier occasions and it has been held that the transaction had takcn place between the tribals and non-tribals much prior to the prornulgation of Regulation I of 1959 and that since no appeals have been tilcd against the said orders at any point of time, the said orders have become final and entertaining a suit again on the very same issue is nothing but violation of principles of res judicata. It is submitted that Sunnarn Cl-ranti, respondent No.3 in W.P.No.40600 of 2022, has fited the suit only with a malafide intention to harass the petitioners herein (non-tribals).^'l'he leamed counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the lollowing decisions in support of the argument that a transfer, which has been ef-fected through an agreement of sale prior to the Regulations coming into force, is not hit by the Regulations and the transfer has becorne final

¶195

(l)Kalagari Anasuya Vs. The District Collector. Tribal Welfare,

¶196

Eluru. West Goclavari Districtr.

¶197

'^{w.p.No.i5322 of2000dr.30.09.2005of A.p. Highcourt}

¶198

\'. I'. r - o s.l l7^()/ 20 2^(1. l16i6 l0l0 I 20l '2011 and^.1060{) l0ll

¶199

¶200

(2) Kola N'lahllaxnri and another Vs. Agcn t to Govcrnnrent, Khamm:rm and othcrs2.

¶201

(3)Dr. Collecfor and another Vs. S.Venkata Ranranaiah and

¶202

another-l

¶203

Sri M.M.tr4. Srinivasa Rao, leamed counsel tbr the unolficial responderlt No.3 in W.P.No.40600 of 2022, submitted that respondent No.3 belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and that he is the absolute orvner and in continuous possession of the land to an extent of Ac.8.37 cents in Survey Nos. 170, l7l and 172 of Sithapuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District having acquired the same through inheritance from his great grandfather, grandf-ather and father. He argucd that the Writ Petitions filed by the non-tribals are not maintainable as there is an altemative remedy of filing an I.A. before the same Couft undcr Ordcl VIl Rule 1 I CPC seeking rejection ol plaint, if so advised. It is further submitted that since the impugned proceeding dt. 15.12.2019 is only a notice, the petitioners can always file a reply to

¶204

'^{i99sti)ar. r r?4(s.r].)} r ( tsqs) o scc sas

¶205

\r P Nos 2.1?0.202t) 21656,'2020 l20l i2422 aud 40600/2021

¶206

¶207

thc said notice aiong with docunterrts, but instead, the petitioners (nontribals) have filed the present Writ Petitions and therefore, the Writ I)etitions are liable to be disrnissed.

¶208

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the issue relating to the right of the non-tribals over the subject land in Survey Nos.l70, 171 and 172 of Sitharampuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, tshadradri-Kothagudem District, 1'elangana had come up on a number of occasions in the suo motu actions initiated by the authorities and after verification ol the earlier record, the cases have been dropped. Therefore, the right of the parties, i.e., non-tribals over the subject land in tribal area before the promulgation of Regulation I of 1959 has been established. However, on the application filed by S. Matlaiah and others, LTR proceedings were initiated in LTR Case No.86/20l9A4KP and subsequently, the unofficial respondent Sunnam Chanti has filed O.S.No.93 of 2021 befbre the Agent to the Governrnent at Kothagudem. But no action has been taken thereon till date.

¶209

l---l

¶210

\.P.\os.lJ70;1010. 216i6 l0l0 I l0 112021 and^,10600.'l0ll

¶211

¶212

The Lancl llanslcl l{egulations are dircctcd at protecting and safeguarding thc schedulcd areas, homeiand ol the tribals, so as to perpetuate and propagatc their unique customs and distinct style of living. The yeorlan objective of these Regulations has to be kept in mind rvh ile deali ng rvith the exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities under thcse Ree,ulations. l'he l-actual matrix urged in O.S.No.93 of 2021 need to escherv tionr this adjudication as this Cotrrt in exercise ol its jurisdiction under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India would not undertake an cnquin, into the factual aspects therein or adjudicate thereupon. Such aspects can only be gone into in a forurn constituted for deciding the questions in respect of lands in scheduled area. Since the /rs belore the Special Court in Agency Area is in the nature of suit, i.e., O.S.No.93 ol 102 l. it cannot be interfered with or set aside under Article 226 o1- the Constitution of India. It is always open to the petitioners in W.P.No.2470 of 2020 and W.P.No.40600 of 2022 (nontribals) to subrnil all the details before the concerned authoritl rvho ubuld look into the issuc beibre taking any coercive steps against the non{riba Is/tl're petitioners hcrein. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioners (non-tribals) to subn.rit their explanation to the respondent

¶213

\:. l'.Nos.2.170, 2020. ll6,.r(r l0l0 l)0 1 t20)2 and 4(160011021

¶214

¶215

autliorities along^r;7i1[ all reler.,ant documents and on such lurnishing ol the details/explanation/written statement, the respondent authorities sirali look into the same belirre taking any action against the petitioners herein (non-tribals). Needless to mention that the petitioners herein (non-tribals) shall be given fair oppoftunity of hearing in the matter.

¶216

With the above directions, W.P.No.2470 of 2020 and

¶217

W.P.No.40600 of 2022 are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶218

Li the result.

¶219

(i) W.P.No.22656 of 2020 and W.P.No. 120i of 2022 arc

¶220

dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶221

(ii)W.P.No.2470 of 2020 and W.P.No.40600 of 2022 are disposed

¶222

of. No order as to costs.

¶223

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions

¶224

shall stand closed.

¶225

SDi-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C*

¶226

¶227

sEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶228

The Principal Secretary, Department of Social welfare Secretariat State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶229

2.The Agent to Government^(Dist Collector), At Kothagudem , Bhadadri Kothagudem Dist 507101 .

¶230

The Special Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District.

¶231

The Tahasildar, Mulkalapally IVlandal, Bhadradra, Kothagudem^District. 5. The Principal Secretary. Home Department, Secretariat, State^of Telangana^at Hyderabad.

¶232

The Superintendent of Police. Bhadadri, Kothagudem District.

¶233

The Station House Officer, tt/lulkalapalli PS, Bhadadri Kothagudem. 8. The State of Telangana, Rep 5y its Principal Secretary^(Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶234

The District Collector, Kothagudem Town, Bhadrad rikothagudem District. 10.The Revenue Divisional Officer Paloncha Town, Bhadradrikothagudem District. 11.The Senior Assistant, O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶235