Case: BIKKINA RAMA RAO Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (TRIBAL WELFARE) KOTA RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.675 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ appeal filed by the appellants herein.2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.3. The dispute relates to the land measuring around 60 acres comprised in survey Nos.462 and 472 situated at Ganaparavaram village of Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District (hereinafter referred to as ?the suit land?). This dispute is governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Regulation?).4. The claim of the appellants is that they have purchased the suit land vide registered sale deeds dated 29.01.1977 executed by several vendors. However, the State (Special Deputy Collector ¬Tribal welfare, Kota Ramachandra Puram, West Godavari), questioned the bona fides of the transactions in question and accordingly issued the notices to the appellants alleging therein that since these sale deeds were found executed in contravention of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Regulation by the Vendors and the Vendees (appellants) and, therefore, they were null and void.5. It is this issue which was probed by the Revenue Authorities by holding an inquiry under the Regulation such as in the first instance, by the Special Deputy Collector by order dated 24.04.1984, thereafter by the Agent to Govt. (as an Appellate Authority) by order dated 27.10.2001 followed by the State (as a Revisionary Authority) by order dated 16.07.2007 and by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction by order dated 02.08.2007 and thereafter in its intra court appellate jurisdiction by the impugned order.6. Though the appellants contested the issue on facts and in law but it was consequently decided against the appellants by all the Authorities and the Courts, wherein it was held that the sale deeds in question were executed in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation and, therefore, they are declared null and void.7. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court and have filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.8. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Authorities and the Courts were justified in holding that the sale deeds in question are null and void because they were executed in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation.9. Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. Adinaryana Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents.10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned order as also the order dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Single Judge, remand the case to the Single Judge (writ court) for deciding the appellants? writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law.11. The need to remand the case to the High Court (writ court) has arisen for two reasons.12. First, the High Court did not examine the case in the context of the definition of the expression ?Transfer? as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Regulation; and Second, certain documents filed by the appellants to prove the transactions in question as being legal and not hit by Section 3 of the Regulation as amended with effect from 01.01.1970, were not considered.13. In our opinion, inquiry on the aforementioned two grounds was also necessary while deciding the legality and validity of the sale deeds in question along with all other issues decided by the Courts below.

Decision:
1[ds]10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned order as also the order dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Single Judge, remand the case to the Single Judge (writ court) for deciding the appellants? writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law.11. The need to remand the case to the High Court (writ court) has arisen for two reasons.12. First, the High Court did not examine the case in the context of the definition of the expression ?Transfer? as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Regulation; and Second, certain documents filed by the appellants to prove the transactions in question as being legal and not hit by Section 3 of the Regulation as amended with effect from 01.01.1970, were not considered.13. In our opinion, inquiry on the aforementioned two grounds was also necessary while deciding the legality and validity of the sale deeds in question along with all other issues decided by the Courts below.