Remanded

Atram Sudhakar v. the Special Agent to Govt. and Project Officer and 2 Others

Telangana HC22 Oct 2024WP/26422/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribal petitioners challenged an appellate authority's order that had set aside a 1983 protective order nullifying a non-tribal's possession of scheduled-area land, relying on a purported 1967 ordinary sale deed. The High Court found the appellate order failed to examine whether the vendor's own acquisition from a tribal violated Section 3(1) of the 1959 Regulation, set the order aside, and remitt

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the first respondent set aside; matter remitted for fresh orders after notice to all parties, considering the Act I of 1917 and Regulation 1959; miscellaneous petitions closed; no co

Atram Sudhakar Vs the Special Agent to Govt. and… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26422 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

Atram Sudhakar, S/o. S.A.Devushav, aged 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Lakkaram Vg. Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶9

Sitagondi Athram Parabhavathi Wo Atram Sudhakar, aged 52^years, Occ Housewife, Rl/o H.No. 2-85, Lakkaram village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶10

Sitagondi Athram Shiva Charan S/o Atram Sudhakar, aged 28^years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No. 1-310, Lakkaram village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District

¶11

Sitagondi Athram Sreenithya D/o Atram Sudhakar, aged 28^years, Rl/o H.No. 1-310, Lakkaram village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶12

Sitagondi Athram Shivani D/o Atram Sudhakar, aged 28^years, Rl/o H.No.1310, Lakkaram village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶13

Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are brought on record as^per LRs of the deceased petitioner No.1 as per Court Order dated 19.04.2023 in l.A.No.l of 2O23.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Adilabad, Hqrs Utnoor.

¶17

2 The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Adilabad

¶18

Akkala Papa Goud S/o late Bhooma Goud, aged Major, Occ: Agriculture,^Rl/o UtnoorVillage and Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶19

Respondent No.1 Cause Title is amended as^per Court Order^dated 1810212009 in W.P.M.P.No.3'1022 of 2007

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^maybe pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records relating to the order vide Proc. No. A4l03/1988 dt 2-9-2006

¶22

passed by the first respondent and Quash the same by dury decraring the order passed by the first respcndent as ifiegar, arbitrary, contrary to the evid6nce on record and also contrary to the provisions of A.p. Schedule Areas Land rransfer (Regulations) 1959.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 0F 2006 PMP. NO:339 490 F 2006)

¶24

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased suspend the operation of the order dt 2-9-2006 vide proc. No. A4l03i1ggg passed by the first respondent i.e. Addr. Agent to Government and project Officer, ITDA Adilabad Hqrs, Utnoor

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 0F 2007 P. NO: 226 OF 2007)

¶26

Between:

¶27

Akkala Papa Goud S/o late Bhooma Goud, aged Major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Utnoor Village anct Mandal, Aoilabat Oi.tritI"-"^'''-'

¶28

...PETITIONER/RESpONDENT No.3

¶29

AND

¶30

' Il?"ifl*'ilTal Asent to Government and Proiect orricer, trDA, Adirabad,

¶31

The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Adilabad Respondent No.1 Cause -Title is amended as per Court Order dated 18lo2t2o09 in W.p.M.p.No .stozz ot idi;i'---^-

¶32

' i:'fl:,i#ti;*3[hg: r:,*3:X[i:B:b B,:fl,"l],",o,^{occ: Asricu,ture,R/o} 4. Sitagondi Athram parabhav_athj Wo Atram Sudhakar, aged 52 years. Occ Housewife, R/o H.No 2-s5, Lakkiraiii-"irrid,J, ni"ooi'lG,io-"rl"ii'iiri'Jo District.

¶33

Sitagondi Athram Shiva Charan S/o Atram Sudhakar, aged 2g years, Occ Business, Rr/o H.No r-3r0, Lakiiraiii-tiirdrii' urnooi"rr,oano*r,l"ni"iirts'Jl District

¶34

Sitagondi Athram Sreenithya D/o Atram Sudhakar, aged 28 years, R/o H.No. 1 -31 0, Lakkaram vilage, uinoor tr,ranJii, I-oli"6"i' oi.tri"t.

¶35

7 Sitagondi Athram Shivani D/o-Atram Sudhakar, aged 2g years, Rt/o H.No.1_ 31 0, Lakkaram vilase, Utnooi uino},-aJirlitlli' ojXiict. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are brought on record as per LRs of the de nt No.5 i J pJ.. c"ii o-.iI. oii"I^- i s rii2ri.is..ii

¶36

fi:,i3:,"3r tffi:n

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances staled vacain the te affidavit the interim order passed by filed in support of the this petition, Hon,ble the Court High Court may in WpMp No. ,; ,;;;;;33949 of 2006 in WP No. 26422 of 2O06 dated 20_12_2006.

¶39

Counset for the petitioner: SRI V:llvt KTRAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI V.ROHIii^{- ----}

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI p.V.MAHESH

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶42

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICET. VINOD KUMAR} WRIT PETITIO^{N No.26422 0F 2006}

¶43

This Writ Petition^{is filed with the following prayer}

¶44

"lssue a rvrit. order^{or direction more in the} nature of rrrit of^{CDRTIORARI catl for the records} relating to the^{order vide ProcNo-A4/03/1988 dated} 02.09.2006^{passed by the 1"' respondentas illegal'} arbitrary, contrary^{to the evidenceon record and also} contrary to thc^{provisions of A P Schedule Areas Land} Trans[elRetiulation]^1959"

¶45

Heard S:i V Ravi^{Kiran Rao learned SeniorC)ounsel} appearing on^{behalf of Sri V. Rohith, learned Counsel for the} petitioner, Learne d^{Government PleaderforSocial Welfare} appearing for^{respondentNos. Iand 2' Despitethe nameof} Counsel appearing^{for respondent No'3 is shown in the cause} list, there is no^{representationon behalfof the 3'd respondent'}

¶46

Petitioner Nos^{2 to 5 are the legal representativesiLRs) of} ,1-r" 1st petitionelwho^{had deceased during the pendenc'7 of the} present Writ Petil,ion^{and are broughton recordas per Court} order dated^{19 04.2023'}

¶47

The cas,: of the^{petitioners, inbrief, is that the1st} petitioner (dec,:ased) is^{the grandson of one late JalpathRao'} S/o Hanmanth Rao,^{residentof Lakkaramvillage; that the} petitioners belonl3 to Schcdule Tribe;^{that the1 =t petrtioner's}

¶48

¶49

grandfather was the owner and possessor of land in Sy. No.17 to an extent of Ac. 5.35 Gts., in Lakkaram village, the then Utnoor Taluq of Adilabad District; that the name of the grandfather of the lst petitioner was shown as pattadar in Khasra Phani of the year 1954-55 in respect of the subject land; and that the aforesaid village is notilied as Scheduled Area as per A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that while the grandfather of the lst petitioner was shown as pattadar of the subject land, there is no evidence on record to show that Sri. Perika Bhemanna, a Non-tribal was in possession and enjoyment of the land prior to Regulation, 1959 being made applicable to the subject area; and that the said Perika Bhemanna being a nontribal could not have sold the land to the father of the 3.d respondent during the year 1967 -68.

¶50

Petitioners further contend that even Perika Bhemanna could not have claimed of being in possession and enjoyment of the subject land prior to O 1 . 12. 1 963 as prior to Andhra Pradesh scheduled area Land Transfer Regulation 1959 being made applicable to the Scheduled Areas of Adilabad District, the transactions of sale of land in subject area was governed by the provisions of Agency Tracts Interest'and Land Transfer Act, 1 of

¶51

tl{#i+:--''"

¶52

¶53

1917 (Act ol llt17), which mandated permission to be obtained from the Agenl_ to Government; and that with the Regulation 1959 being madr: applicable rv.e.f. Ol.12.1963, sanc[ion of Government or consent of Agent is required to be obtained under Section :l( 1) of the Regulation for sale / purchase of the land from a tnbal Lo non-tribal.

¶54

Petitioners contend that the 2"d respondent in the year 1983 taking note of the fact that the subject iand being situated in Schedule Area and is being claimed by a non_tribal, had initiated suo moto proceedings invoking the provisions of A.p. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959, by issuing notice to the gran<ifather of the I st petitioner and also to the father of the 3rd respondent stating that there was a reason to believe that the transfer of immovable property was mzLde in contravention of Sc:ction 3 (1) of the Regulation; and that, after issuance of notice, as the grandfather of the lst petitioner had deceased, the fat.her of the l"t petitioner was brought on record as LR of the origina.l pattadar.

¶55

Petitioners also contencl that the 2"d respondent after recording the oral evidence of the father of the 1.t petitioner and also that of the father of the 3.d respondent in exercise of powers conferred under the Act and the Rules rnade therelrnder

¶56

¶57

viz., AP Schedule Areas Land Transfer Rules 1969, had passed

¶58

order dated 28.12.19a3, holding that -

¶59

"that the non-tribal respondent has not produced any document to prove his possession over the subject land prior to 01.12.1963 and as the subject land belongs to tribal pattadar, the transaction made if any by the non-tribal and the non-tribal respondent is nullihed as the suit land belongs to the tribal pattadar and the said land is situated in the notifiecl scheduled area and thus the transfer is the therefore void. Illegat, un-authorised and in contravention of Section 3(1) of Regulation i959."

¶60

Petitioners further contend that on the 2"d respondent passing the aforesaid order, the 3.d respondent had approached this Court by Iiling Writ Petition uide W.P. No.749O of 1984 claiming that he belongs to the 'Goud' community which is also considered as Schedule Tribe and, as such, there is no contravention of provisions of Section 3(1) of the Regulation, 1959; and that this Court having regard to the^judgment rendered in W.P. No.4941 of 1983 dated 14.O9. 1983 had initially granted suspension of the order. of the 2"d respondent. 10. Petitioners further contend that the order^{in W.P. No.4941} of 1983 was the subject matter of a^{Writ Appeal and in the said} Writ Appeal, this Court was pleased to set aside the^{order in} W.P. No.4941 of 1983; and that on the Division^{Bench of this} Court reversing the order in Writ Petition^{No'494Lof 1983, the} Writ Petition Iiled by the 3'd respondent^{u'as also dismissedon} 20.04.1988.

¶61

¶62

¶63

1 1 . It is also^lh e contention^{of the petitioners that on this} Court dismissing^{:he Writ Petitionfiled by the 3'd respondent,} the 2"d responder:t^{gave effect to the order dated 28'112 i983} and the^{possessiol-tof the subject land wastaken over frrlm the} 3'd respondent and^{handedover to the father of the1"t} petitioner by conducting^{panchanamaon 17.O5.1988.}

¶64

Petitioners zLlso^{contendthat after dismissal of the Writ} Petition, the father of the^{3'd respondent filed an Appeal zrgainst} the order of 2"" respondent^{dated 2a.12.1983;and that during} the pendency o1'the said appeal,^{the father of the 3'd resp':ndent} herein having deceased,^{the 3'd respondenthas comeon record} in the appeal pending before the^{1st respondent.}

¶65

Petitioners firrther contend^{that in the appeal hled by the} father of the 3'd rt:spondent^{though various groundshave been} raised, the 1st respondent without^{appreciatingthe real issue} involved and rvithout taking note^{of the appticableprovisions of} the Regulation 1959 as made^{applicablew.e.f. 01 12.19(j3 had} set aside the orrler of the^{2"d respondentdt. 28.12.1963.}

¶66

Petitioners also contend that the^{l'trespondent while} setting aside the order of^{the 2"d respondent, had erroneously} placed reliancer cn the Ordinary sale deed dt.^24.08.1967 purported to ha.ve been executed by Perika^{Bhemanna in favour}

¶67

¶68

of the father of the 3'd respondent as^{having been established,} and the transactiorr being between tribal to non-tribal,^{is not} governed by the provisions of Regulation i of^{197O being prior} in point of time.

¶69

Petitioners further contend^{that the father of the 3'd} respondent had never^{pleadedthe existenceof the ordinary sale} deed dated 24.Oa.1967 in the^{proceedingsbefore the 2'd} respondent initiated during the^{year 1983 are in the Writ} Petition filed before this Court^{uide W.P. No.749Oof 1984 and} the said ordinary Sale^{deed was brought into existence only in} the appeal hled after the^{dismissat of the Writ Petition in the} year 1988, which fact the lst^{respondenthad failedto take note} of.

¶70

Petitioners also contend^{that il onlythe said ordinary sale} deed dated 24.12.1967^{reallyexisted,the samewould have been} mentioned by the father of^{the 3'd respondentof he having} purchased the subject land^{from Perika Bheemannaon the 2nd} respondent initiating^{proceedingsin the year 1983 or in the} validation certihcate dt.^{18.08.1976 issued the by the Tahsildar} under Section 50-B of^{the A P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy&} Agricultural Lands Act,^{195O. Petitionersalso contend that in} the validation certilicate, except^{mentioning the amount}

)F ^{

deposited on^{20.05i.1972 for registration as per the provisions of} Registration^{Act being equal to the registrationfee and the} stamp duty,^{no reference is made to the allegedsale deed}

¶75

Thus, the^{petitioners contendthat the 1st resprlndcnt} while setting^{asidt: the order of the 2nd respondentdid not also} takeintoconsiderationthefactthatthepossessionofthe subject^{property by Perika Bheemanna itsetf is In 66n112rrention} of Section 3^{(1) of the Regulationand thus,the subsequentsale} of the subject^{tar-rd by Perika Bheemanna under thc alleged} ordinary^{sale deecl in favour of the father of the 3'd respondent} would not become^valid.

¶76

Petitioners^{contend that if only the ordinarysale deed} purported to havt:^{been executed in favourof the father of 3'd} respondent^{existed at the relevantpoint of time , thefa ther of} the 3'd respondel-rt^{would not have failed to place th': same} before the 2'd^{respondent in the suo moto proceedings initiated} in the year 1983,rr^{even at the time when he was beingevicted} from the subject.^{land subsequent to dismissalof the Writ} Petition uideW^{.P. No.749Oof 1984 on 17 05' 1988}

¶77

lg. Petitione rs thus, contend^{that the entirepremise of the} order of the^{1sr respondent is based on the ordinary sale deed} stated to have^{be,:n executed by Perika Bheernanna in fervour of}

¶78

¶79

the father of the 3'd respondent in the^year 1967^{as havingbeen} established and since, the same being prior in^point of^{time of} coming into force of Regulation I of 7970,^{the order of the 2"d} respondent is not sustainable, is^{withouttaking note of the fact} that prior to Regulation I of l97O coming^{into force the subject} area was covered by Regulation 1959^{w.e.f 01.12.1963and} transfer from Tribal to Non-tribal is not^permitted. 20. In support of the aforesaid contentions,^{petitionershave} placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶80

i). Vangala Narosaiah a. Goovuri Naraganal;^{i). Penmetsa} Ratnabhadri Raju v. State represented b^{g the Special} Deputg ?a,hsildar (Tribal Welfare) No.7,^Eluttt,West Godauari District2; i111. Deputg Collector and^{anothera. S.} Venkatramanaiahs; ivl. Vaddi Veeraiah^{u. The Agent to} Gooernmenfr; v). Vanka Venkanna u. Special^Deputg Collector (TW) Paloncha, Khammann Districts;^{v|l. Yandapu} Satgauati and another u Secretary to^{Gout. of A.P. Tribal} WelJare Departmen| Hgderabad6;^{vil). Tellam VenkatRdo a.}

¶81

1 1969 APL) 27 ,,1988(1) ALT 41 1

¶82

3 (1995) 6 SCCs 545

¶83

4 1996 (1) ALD 107 (DB)

¶84

s 2001 l2l AUI 709

6 2007 ls]4lLT 271

,/,/

Goat. of 4.pz; vlir). P. Gangaraju u. Agent^{to Gouernmen|} West Godaaari Districts; and ix). P.^{RamiReddg u, StateoJ} A.P.9

¶89

Per Contra learned Government^{Pleaderappearing for the} respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that^{the order of the 2"d} responden[ dated 28.12.1983 is based on^{the possession of the} land having regarcl to the provisions of Regulation^{1959and the} Rules made thereunder, while the order of the I"t^{responrfent in} appeal is based on the ordinary sale deed datcd^28.O8.1967 which was not considered by the 2'd respondent,^{while passing} the order tn sur> moto proceedings initiated by him.

¶90

Learned^(lo/ernment Pleader would further contend^that since the order of the lst respondent also takes notc of the^fact that the father,rf the 3'd respondent having^paid the^registration charges on 20.O5.7972 uide ch'allar No.251 and 252, in^respect of sale o[ the subject land made to him by Perika^Bheemanna, though by an ordrnary sale deed dated 24.08.1967, the^{sale of} the subject lan<l being prior to the cut-off date mentioned^under Regulation I of 1970, the same is to be considered^{as not being} hit by Regulation ol I 970.

¶91

? 2012 (r) ALT 102 (DB)

¶92

8 r989 (2) (HC) 2s2 s (1988) 3 SCC 433

¶93

¶94

Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the lst respondent while passing the irnpugned order had also taken note of the fact that the 1.r petitioner's father had deposed that the subject land belongs to his grandfather late Hanmanth Rao; that Perika Bheemanna was cultivating the above land; and that the name of Perika Bheemanna was mutated in the revenue records and pahani for the year i955-56 are factors which supports the order of 1.t respondent.

¶95

Learned Government Pleader wouid also contend that the name of the Perika Bheemanna having been ente red in the Pahani for the year 1955-56, he had tried to sell the subject land to one Ahmad Sharif in the year 1959-60, however, due to non-payment of the sale consideration, the transaction was cancelled and it is thereafter the subject land was sold to the father of the 3'd respondent under ordinary saie deed dated 28.04.1967; and that the name of the father of the 3'd respondent was recorded in the revenue records of the year 1968-69 as cultivator.

¶96

Learned Government Pleader thus contended that the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order had taken note of the entries in revenue records as well as the father of the 3'd h-

¶97

respondent having established the purchase of the subject land

1,1

I I i

under ordinary siile deed dated 24.08.1967 and his name having been en tered in revenue records had found thr: said transaction having taken place before the cut-off date cf the provisions of Regulation I of lgTO coming into force arLd the transaction not being hit by the provisions of Section !l(1) of Regulation 1959 re ad with the amended Regulation I of 1970. Thus, the learned Government Pleader sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition

¶102

I have takr:n note of the respective contentions urged.

¶103

Firstly, it is tt> be noted that prior to Regulation 1 of lgTO coming into force. the transactions in schedule area i.e. Aditabad are governed by the provisions of A.p. Scheduled ,{reas Land Transfer Regulation 1959, w.e.f. O1.12.1963 ancl the relevant provision ivhich is applicable in Section 3(l) of Regulation 1 of 1,15{), prior Lo amendment reads as under:

¶104

"3. Transfer of immovable property by a member of a scheduled Tribe: - Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts, any transfer of irrLmovable property situated in the Agency tracts by a member of a Scheduled Tribe, shalt be absolutely null and void unlcss rnade -

¶105

(i) in favour of any other member of a Scheduled Trjbe or a registered society as clefined in clause ($ of Section 2 of t:ne Madras Co_operative Societies Act, 1932

¶106

¶107

(Madras Act Vl of 1932), composed solely of members of the Scheduled^'lribes, or

¶108

(ii) with the previous sanction of the State Government or subject to rules made in this behalf, with the previous consent in writing of the Agent or of any prescribed officer".

¶109

A perusal of the order of the lst respondent would show that it is based on the premise that the father of the 3rd respondent having established his claim of the subject land having been purchased by him from Perika Bheemanna under ordinary saie deed dated 24.08.1967, and the said transaction as not being hit by the provisions of Section 3 (1) of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Reguiation I of 1970. However, the 1st respondent authority did not take into consideration as to whether Perika Bheemanna who himself is a non-tribai could have claimed the subject land as having been purchased by him from the grandfather of the 1st petitioner, who is a tribal during the subsistence of Regulation 1 of1959 or prior thereto under the Act of 1917.

¶110

Further, it is also to be seen that the l"t respondent in the impugned order, whereby the appeal filed by the father of the 3'd respondent was allowed and the order of the 2"d respondent^was set aside with a direction to restore the subject land^{in favour of}

¶111

¶112

the non-tribal, i.e , 3'd respondent^{beingrecognizedas jr-rst and} rightful o$,ner of the subject land,^{the 1st respondenttlid not} take into con^sid cration that^{subsequentvalidationofan} ordinary sale deerl^{u,ould not automatically make the said sale} deed valid and^{proved, and would only al1ow the same for the} purpose of marking the document in^{order to establishand to} prove the clairn milde thereunder.

¶113

Though the father of the^{3'd respondent had clairned to} have purchasecl ttre subject land under^{ordinarysaledee<ldated} 24.O8.1967, it is r,ol shown that the^{father of the 3'd respondent} while defending prroceedings before the^{2"a respondent which} were initiated du:ing the year 1983 had claimed the^subject land being possessed by him under the said^{ordinarysale deed} executed by Perika Bheemanna. On^{the other hand the father of} the 3.d responrlen t in the Writ Petition^{hled before this Court} uideW.P. No.749C of 1984 assailing the order^{of 2'd respondent} had claimed that since he belongs to 'Goud' community,^which is also recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the said^{arr:a, the} transaction of salt: by Perika Bheemanna^{is from a non-tribal to} Tribal and as suc:h is not hit by the provisions of Regulation 1959.

¶114

¶115

Further, the father^{of the 3'd respondentin order to claim} the transaction to be^{valid transactionhad solelyrelied on} Section 50-B certihcate^{issued by the then Tahsildar, wherein} also there is no^{mentionor referenceto the ordinarysale deed} on which much reliance^{has been placed by the lst respondent} while passing the imPugned^order.

¶116

Further,^{a perusalof the impugned order would also show} that the 1"t respondent^{had assumed that validation of ordinary} sale deed would automatically^{make the said ordinary sale deed} valid and cannot be^{questionedwhichconclusion of the1st} respondent is contrary^{to the settled positionof law (See:} Pamshettg Jojappa and^{Ors- Vs. State of Telangana and} Orslo, Ramaraj Sitarama^{Rao Vs. State of Telangana and} orsrr).

¶117

The lst respondent^{while passing the impugnedorder} though had framed^{two questions to be answered as to whether} any transaction^{of scheduledpropert5rbetween a tribal to a non-} tribal or non-tribal^{to another non-tribal is violation of Land} Transfer Regulation^{provisions, however, proceeded on an} assumptioo^{that ordinarysale deed dt. 28.04.1967as validly}

¶118

to MANU lrL/oto412020 tt MANU /TLll26a/2022

I i

executed,withouttakingnoteofthefactthatasperSectit>n3(1) of the Regulati<>n^{1959. As per Section 3(1) of the Regulation} 1959, prior sallction^{of the State Government or consent of} agent to Governme:nl^{is requiredto be obtained for effectir-rgsale} of immovable^{property from a tribalto non-tribal'In abst:nce of} any such^{cons(lntor sanction having been obtained from the} State Government^{or agent, Perika Bheemannacould nc't have} ciaimed^{of purchasingthc subjectland from the grand fatherof} the 1.t^{petitioncrlleing a scheduledtribe and being siturrted in} schedule area.^{Ccnsequently, the father of the 3'd respondent} could not^{ha','e claimed the subjectland having purchasedby} him under the^{,:rd inarysale deed dated 24'08'1967 froma non-} tribal, who^{himselt cannotclaim the subject propertyvali<lly'}

¶123

Since, the 1't^{responclentwhile passingthe impugnecl} order has^{proceecledonly on the basis of the ordinary sale deed} d.t.24.O8.1967^{and having concluded that the transactionis not} hit by the^{provisions of Section 3(1) of Regulation1()59 as} amended by^{Regulationiof 1970 whichconclusionas noted} herein above^{is withoutexaminingas to whether the claim being} made by the^{vend,tr of the 3'd respondent i e' Perika Bheemanna} itself is valid or^{n,rt and is hit by Section 3(1) of the Regulation} 1959, this Corrrt^{is ot- the view that the impugned orderas}

¶124

¶125

passed by the 1"t^{respondentis without a detailed examination} of the issue^{involved andthe applicationof provisionsof} Section 3^{(1) of Regulation 1959 as amendedby Regulation1 of} l97O for it to be^sustained'

¶126

Accordingly,^{the impugnedorderas passed by the lst} respondent authority^{is set aside and the matter is remitted} back to the^{1't respondent authorityfor passingorders afresh} by considering^{the applicability of provisions of i) Agency Tracts} InterestandLandTransferAct,loflgl7,andii)Regulation 1959 to the^{subjectland. The l"t respondentshall issue notice} to all the^{partiesconcernedbeforepassing the order afresh'}

¶127