IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6270 of 2004 Between: Kaipu Nagireddy … Petitioner And Agent to Government, Khammam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R. Kameswara Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6270 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for issuance of Certiorari to quash order dated 28.11.2003 in CMA.No.17 of 2002 on the file of respondent No.1 and order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Agency Divisional Officer, Paloncha, respondent No.2. Heard Sri R. Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondents. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.5.30 guntas situated in Sy.No.431/1/29 of Morampalli Banjar Village of Burgampad Mandal, Khammam District under an unregistered simple sale deed from the original land owner by name, Syed Asrar. Both the vendor and the vendee are non- tribals. The land is situated in an agency area. In the year 1994, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of the abovementioned land. The petitioner participated in the said proceedings. The vendor, namely, Syed Asrar, was shown to have died and by order dated 31.03.1994, respondent No.2 dropped further proceedings by holding that the transaction between the two non-tribals has taken place on 25.10.1965 and that the land revenue receipts produced by the petitioner showed that he was in continuous possession of the property. It was further held that as the transaction has taken place prior to 03.02.1970, the date on which the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1970 came into force, the petitioner is not liable for ejection. This order has become final. However, a year thereafter, respondent No.2 initiated suo motu proceedings in respect of Ac.4.00 of land situated in Sy.No.431/1 of Morampalli Banjar Village. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not issued any notice and an ex parte order was passed by respondent No.2 on 17.10.2000 by holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the transaction has taken place prior to coming into force of Regulation 1 of 1970. He has accordingly ordered eviction of the petitioner. In a writ petition filed questioning the said order, this Court relegated the petitioner to file an appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed CMA.No.17 of 2002 before respondent No.2, who, by order dated 28.11.2003, dismissed the appeal. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very initiation of fresh proceedings by respondent No.2 after completion of the earlier proceedings was without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chintalapati Ramalinga Raju vs. District Collector, Eluru, W.G. Godavari and another[1]. The learned counsel further submitted that while the order passed by respondent No.2 was without notice, respondent No.1 has failed to deal with the two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, namely, that the order passed by respondent No.2 was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that initiation of fresh proceedings in the face of order dated 31.03.1994 passed by respondent No.2 in the previous proceedings was without jurisdiction. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that the previous proceedings were initiated in respect of Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.431/1/29 and the subsequent proceedings were in relation to Ac.4.00 of land in Sy.No.431/1 and that therefore the survey numbers and the extent of the lands are different. It was further averred that notices were issued to the petitioner on 08.03.2000, 14.03.2000 and 10.10.2000 by respondent No.2 and that as the petitioner failed to attend the hearing, respondent No.2 passed the order. In the order passed by respondent No.2 on 31.03.1994, it has been stated that the petitioner filed sale agreement and also land revenue receipts, which conclusively prove that the sale transaction has taken place between two non-tribals prior to 1970. Within one year of passing of the said order, respondent No.2 initiated suo motu fresh proceedings. It is pertinent to notice that in the order passed by respondent No.2 in the subsequent proceedings, no justification has been offered by him for initiating fresh proceedings. Neither he adverted to the earlier order nor made any observations regarding the deficiencies, if any contained in the previous proceedings. A perusal of the said order shows that respondent No.2 has completely ignored the fact that already similar proceedings were initiated previously and the same ended in favour of the petitioner. It is also interesting to observe that while in the previous proceedings Syed Asrar was shown to have died, in the later proceedings, his name is again shown as if he is alive. No finding is rendered by respondent No.2 with regard to the existence of Syed Asrar on the date of initiation of fresh proceedings. In the order passed by respondent No.1, the contentions of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has not issued any notice and that the previous order operates as res judicata were referred, but respondent No.1 failed to advert to both the contentions and no findings thereon were rendered. In Chintalapati Ramalinga Raju (1 supra) the Division Bench while dealing with a similar situation held that when a judgment is rendered under the Regulations, it becomes final and no review of the same is permissible. In the face of the admitted position that respondent No.2 has passed an order in unequivocal terms that the transaction between the petitioner and another person, who is also a non-tribal, was not affected by Regulation 1 of 1970, another proceeding for ejection of the petitioner on the same grounds was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddy and others vs. Collector, Adilabad District and others[2] in questioning the finding of respondent No.1 that as the transaction under which the petitioner claimed to have purchased the property was an unregistered document, no rights came to be vested in the petitioner and that as such it was contrary to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is not necessary for me to delve into the said aspect in view of the finding that initiation of the subsequent proceedings was not permissible. Though in the counter affidavit a stand is taken that the survey number and the extent of the lands are different, neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.1 in their respective orders have referred to this aspect. No finding is given that order dated 31.03.1994 passed by respondent No.2 was in relation to a different land. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner categorically averred that the extent of Ac.4.00 in respect of which fresh proceedings have been initiated is part of Ac.5.30 guntas of land, which was the subject matter of the previous proceedings and that out of the said extent, Ac.3.00 fell to his share and the balance extent fell to the share of his brother Konda Reddy and that he and his brother are not having any other land except the abovementioned land. Even in the counter affidavit no specific averment is made that the land is different, while a vague plea is raised that the survey number and the extents vary. Even assuming that there is some variation in the survey number, inasmuch as the survey number in the previous proceedings was shown as Sy.No.431/1/29, in the latter proceedings, it was shown as Sy.No.431/1, in the absence of specific averment that the lands are different, this plea of the respondents cannot be accepted. At any rate, when a specific contention has been raised by the petitioner, respondent No.1 ought to have clarified the same in his order. The law is well settled that the reasons contained in the orders passed by the authorities cannot be supplemented by way of subsequent affidavits. (see Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji[3] and Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others[4]) As the petitioner already faced eviction proceedings and emerged successfully, he cannot be vexed repeatedly by initiating successive proceedings, more so, when the vendor, who also happened to be a non-tribal, appeared to have died even before the completion of the earlier proceedings. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and both the impugned orders are quashed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.8148 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.12.2009 ES [1] 2000 (2) ALT 155 (D.B) [2] AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 1 [3] AIR (39) 1952 SC 16 [4] AIR 1978 SC 851