IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25279 of 2006 Between: Yentrapragada Soma Raju, S/o.Suranna R/o.Kommugudem village, W.G. district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, I.T.D.A. Office, K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttaigudem Mandal, Buttaigudem, W.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue order direction writ more particularly writ of mandamus declare the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in S.R.No.81 of 2005 dt. 06.10.2006 as illegal arbitrary and without power and jurisdiction under the provision of Regulation 1/70 and consequentially set aside the same to pass such further order or orders as are necessary in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : O R D E R : This Writ Petition has been filed by Yendrapragada Soma Raju with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare-1st respondent in SR.No.81 of 2005, dated 06.10.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.3-30 cents in RS.No.121 PT of Laxmudugudem village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. Originally the land was registered in the name of P.Venkatachalam and Brahmaiah, who are non-tribals, as per RSR 1933. The said land was purchased by K.Sriramulu, a non-tribe under a registered sale deed. One Karuturi Surya Rao, father-in-law of the petitioner got the land under a possessory agreement of sale dated 15.08.1969. In the family partition the land fell to the share of the wife of the petitioner. A complaint came to be presented against the petitioner and his family members alleging that they are in occupation of Ac.3-30 cents in RS.No.121 PT and other lands in contravention with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The 1st respondent entertained the complaint as SR No.1072 of 1990. On enquiry, the 1st respondent found the possession of the petitioner and his family members was not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. There being no appeal against the said order, it attained finality. In the year 1999 the then Special Deputy Collector initiated proceedings in SR.No.212 of 1999 without impleading the petitioner as a party. A n ex parte order came to be passed on 28.02.2000. Basing on the orders passed by 1st respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer tried to evict the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.18186 of 2003. This court while admitting the said writ petition granted interim stay of the order of eviction. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 28.07.2005 setting aside the order dated 28.02.2000 passed in SR.No.212 of 1999 reserving the liberty to the respondents to conduct thorough enquiry and pass appropriate orders after considering the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections on 08.11.2005. No order came to be passed in SR.No.1072 of 1999 after receipt of objections from the petitioner. When the tribals of Laxmudugudem village interfered with the possession of the petitioner and prevented him from cultivating the lands, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2666 of 2006. The writ petition came to be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner with regard to initiation of successive ejectment proceedings. The petitioner filed C.C.No.971 of 2006 for disobedience of the order dated 14.02.2006 passed in W.P.No.2666 of 2006. After receipt of notice in C.C., the 1st respondent passed the order in SR.No.81 of 2005. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and members of his family in S.R.No.1072 and batch on the ground that the land bearing R.S.No.121 PT apart from other lands of Laxmudugudem village admeasuring Ac.3.30 cents in their possession were in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 and ultimately the proceedings went in favour of the petitioner and therefore, successive proceedings in respect of the self-same land is impermissible. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in C.Ramalinga Raju v. District Collector, Eluru, W.G. Dist.,[1] and Mallina Venkatarao v. District Collector, W.G. Dist.[2]. Learned counsel would also contend that availability of alternative remedy does not affect jurisdiction of High Court, specially in case where authority against whom writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction. To buttress his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai[3]. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents submits that successive proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 are permissible in the event of additional grounds being made available. 6. It is a matter of record that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, his brothers, father-in-law and his co-brother under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 on the ground that certain lands in their possession were in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 and the said proceedings went in favour of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note para.5(ii) of the order dated 22.07.1991 passed in S.R.No.1072 of 1990 & Batch which reads as hereunder: “5.(ii) The following land which were purchased by the respondents on sale agreement (prior to the coming into force of A.P.S.A.L.T.REG.1/59 as amended by 1/70) which were covered by Ex.R6, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12, R14 and R15 were also never held by tribals ever since 1916, but the sales were not registered due to coming into force of the aforesaid regulation with effect from 3-2-70 as revealed by enquiry. R.S.No. Extent (Ac.) 166 10.41 189/3 5.31 72pt 1.00 190/2 1.51 177/1 3.26 131pt 1.78 80/7 0.80 121pt 3.00 184/1A 0.87 122pt 3.00 184/1C 0.88 83pt 1.50 184/2pt 0.50 The agreements were executed on stamped papers. As seen from the recitals of the agreements, the vendors delivered possession of the sale lands to the vendees on the day of executing the agreements which was well prior to the coming into force of the aforesaid Regulation on 3-2-70. The extracts from the village adangal for F 1398-vice Ex.R.16 shows the lands in the possession of the vendees. The vendors of the lands who are entitled to get back the lands in case of any contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid regulation admitted that the lands in question were delivered possession to the vendees on the day of agreement itself which was prior to 3-2-70. From the above facts, I find no reason to suspect the bonafide of the sale contracts. In a case relating to Gaddam Narasareddi and others Vs. Collector, Adilabad and others in Writ Petition No.4207 of 1977 & W.A.No.64, 68 and 231 of 1979 and AAO 151 of 1979 Dt.21-8-81 published in AIR 1982-AP I on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad a Full Bench consisting of Justices Sri Ramachandra Rao, Raghuver and Ramanujulu Naidu observed that Sec.2(g) of the A.P.S.A.LT.Reg.1/59 as amended by Reg.1/70 merely defines “Transfer” and it includes a contract so sell, that sec.3(1) OF THE SAID regulation have no retrospective operation and do not effect the transfer made prior to the said Regulation or its amendments coming into force and that the authorities u/s.3(2) of the aforesaid Regulations have no jurisdiction to pass orders in relation to the immovable property covered by such transfers. And that the validity or otherwise of the transfers made prior to Sec.3(1) of Reg.1/70 or its amendments by Reg.II of 1963 or Reg.1/70 coming into force cannot be adjudicated upon u/s.3(2) of the Reg. And that the same has to be challenged in an appropriate Forum constituted for deciding disputes relating to immovable property situate in Scheduled areas. In the instant case, there are contracts to sell immovable property which fall under the definition of ‘Transfer’ u/s/2(g) of the A.P.S.A.L.T.Reg.1/59 as amended by 1/70 and the transfers were affected prior to the coming into force of the aforesaid Regulation i.e., 3-2-70 and therefore, in the light of the observation made by the full bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid case, I find no contravention of the provisions of the said Regulations involved in these cases. In the result, the claims filed by the Spl.Dy.Tahsildar (TW) No.I, K.R.Puram in respect of the lands mentioned in paras. 5(i) and 5(ii) above are hereby disallowed.” It is crystal clear from the order passed in S.R.No.1072 of 1990 & Batch that the possession of the petitioners over the lands in question was held to be not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. There is no additional material for the authority to initiate successive proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. In the absence of any additional material, the order passed by the 1st respondent in S.R.No.81 of 2005, dated 06.10.2006, cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in S.R.No.81 of 2005, dated 06.10.2006 as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:31st December, 2008. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] 2000 (4) ALD 443 (DB) [2] 2005 (4) ALD 498 [3] AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 22