IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.24130 of 1997 Between: 1 Mandalapu Seetharamaiah, S/o. Venkatappayya, Gannavaram Village, Gowridevipeta Post, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam Dist. 2 Mandalapu Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Venkatappayya, Gannavaram Village, Gowridevipeta Post, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam Dist. 3 Mandalapu Rangamma, W/o. Venkatappayya, Gannavaram Village, Gowridevipeta Post, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner, Survey Settlements & Land Records, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The Director OF Settlements, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Settlement officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam 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 will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected of the order of the 1st Respondent, passed in L1/1318/88 dated 30.11.1996 and quash the same as illegal, contrary to law, consequently by directing the Respondents to grant Ryotwari Patta in respect of the land admeasuring H.1-04 ares comprised in R.S. No. 4/2 situate at Gannavaram Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.MANIKYALA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.24130 of 1997 ORDER: The petitioners in the present Writ Petition, after amendment of the prayer by virtue of the order of this Court dated 21.06.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.11816 of 2007, challenge the validity of the Proceedings dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, the ﬁrst respondent herein, in L1/1318/88. The petitioners also seek a consequential direction to the respondent authorities to grant a Ryotwari patta in their favour in respect of the land admeasuring Hectares 1-04 ares comprised in R.S.No.4/2 situated at Gannavaram Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. The averments in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition are to the eﬀect that the subject land was originally owned by one Gundroju Naramma. It is stated that one Sri Ravi Satyam sold the said land under a registered sale deed bearing document No.277/65 dated 01.06.1965 to one Muttapalli Nagaratnam, W/o.Joga Rao, who in turn sold it to Sri Mandalapu Laxmana Rao, the second petitioner herein under an unregistered document dated 10.01.1975. The petitioners claim title to the subject land through Sri Mandalapu Laxmana Rao. The Settlement Oﬃcer, Bhadrachalam, the third respondent herein, initiated a suo moto enquiry with respect to the grant of Ryotwari Patta in respect of the subject land under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. By order dated 23.01.1979 in Case No.3607/77 the third respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, they ﬁled an appeal in A.P.No.418 of 1979 before the Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, the second respondent herein. The said appeal was also dismissed by order dated 02.12.1982, whereupon the petitioners ﬁled a second appeal before the Commissioner of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, the ﬁrst respondent herein. By the impugned order dated 30.11.1996, the ﬁrst respondent rejected the appeal ﬁled by the petitioners, conﬁrming the orders passed by the authorities below. Hence, the present writ petition. Sri K.Manikyala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the petitioners came into possession of the said land in the year 1969 itself, having paid valuable consideration, and that a formal agreement of sale was drawn up subsequently on 10.01.1975. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the said transaction would not be struck by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulation of 1959 as amended by the Regulation of 1970”). The learned counsel is however not in a position to explain as to how the land was sold by a complete stranger, Sri Ravi Satyam and as to what his relationship was with the original owner Gundroju Naramma. He submitted that the petitioners were landless poor persons and that their possession over the subject land required to be protected. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue relying upon three separate counter- aﬃdavits ﬁled by the respondents, submitted that the transaction in favour of the petitioners, who were admittedly non-tribals, would be struck by the prohibition enjoined by the Regulation of 1959 as amended by the Regulation of 1970 and accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to any protection in law. He pointed out that the petitioners were not in a position to assert and prove that their source of title in respect of the subject land could be traced to a transaction prior to the amendment of the Regulation of 1959 by the Regulation of 1970. Only the transactions made by non- tribals in respect of the lands in scheduled areas prior to the amendment of the Regulation of 1959 by the Regulation of 1970 would be protected. Unless the petitioners prove that they are covered by such a transaction, the learned Government Pleader contended that they would have no right recognized by law in respect of the subject land. In any event, as the claim of the petitioners was based upon an unregistered transaction dated 10.01.1975, the learned Government Pleader summed up that the Regulation of 1959 as amended by the Regulation of 1970 would have direct application to the facts of the present case. He also pointed out that the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Badrachalam Mandal, Khammam District, the fourth respondent herein demonstrated the fact that the petitioners were not landless poor persons in the light of the land holdings owned by them. The petitioners have not chosen to reply to the three counter-affidavits filed by the respondents. A perusal of the order dated 30.11.1996, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition, shows that the Settlement Oﬃcer, Badrachalam having undertaken a suo moto enquiry with respect to grant of Ryotwari Patta under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 found that the petitioners were disentitled to claim the subject land as the transaction relied upon by them as a source of their title, was struck by the provisions of the Regulation of 1959 as amended by the Regulation of 1970. The ﬁrst respondent, having considered the matter, concluded that the transaction which forms the foundation of the petitioners’ claim being the agreement of sale dated 10.01.1975, which is long after 03.02.1970, the date on which the Regulation of 1970 came into force, would come within the prohibition enjoined by Regulation 3(2) of the Regulation of 1959 as amended by the Regulation of 1970. Regulation 3(1) and Regulation 3(2) of the Regulation of 1959 as amended by the Regulation of 1970 read as hereunder: “3. Transfer of immovable property by a member of a Scheduled Tribe:- (1)(a) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts any transfer of immovable property situated in the Agency tracts by a person. Whether or not such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, shall be absolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in favour of person, who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) which is composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes. (b) Until the contrary is proved, any immovable property situated in the Agency tracts and in the possession of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, shall be presumed to have been acquired by person or his predecessor in possession through a transfer made to him by a member of a Scheduled Tribe. (c) Where a person intending to sell his land is not able to eﬀect such sale, by reason of the fact that no member of a Scheduled Tribe is willing to purchase the land or is willing to purchase the land on the terms oﬀered by such person, then such person may apply to the Agent, the Agency Divisional Oﬃcer or any other prescribed oﬃcer for the acquisition of such land by the State Government, and the Agent, Agency Divisional Oﬃcer or any other prescribed oﬃcer, as the case may be, may by order, take over such land on payment of compensation in accordance with the principles speciﬁed in Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 (Act X of 1961), and such land shall thereupon vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and shall be disposed of in favour of members of the Scheduled Tribes or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes or in such other manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed; 2(a) Where a transfer of immovable property is made in contravention of sub-section (1), the Agent, the Agency Divisional Oﬃcer or any other prescribed Oﬃcer may, on application by any one interested, or on information given in writing by a public servant, or suo motu decree ejectment against any person in possession of the property claiming under the transfer, after due notice to him in the manner prescribed and may restore it to the transfer of his heirs. (b) If the transferer or his heirs are not willing to take back the property or where their whereabouts are not known, the Agent, the Agency Divisional Oﬃcer or prescribed oﬃcer, as the case may be, may order the assignment or sale of the property to any other member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be registered under any law relating to Co-operative Societies for the time being in force in the State composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes, or otherwise dispose of it, as if it was a property at the disposal of State Government.” In the light of the clear prohibition introduced by way of the amendment of Regulation of 1959 through Regulation of 1970, it is not open to non-tribals to assert any right or title over the lands in scheduled areas basing on a transaction or document of title executed after 03.02.1970. The contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioners that an agreement of sale does not constitute a document of title and would therefore not come within the prohibited transaction under Regulation 3(2) of the Regulation of 1959 as amended by the Regulation of 1970 cannot be accepted. What cannot be achieved under a document of title cannot be permitted under an agreement to execute such a document of title. Once it is admitted that the petitioners’ claim over the subject land in a scheduled area is based upon a transaction after the date, 03.02.1970, it comes within the prohibition laid down by the Regulation of 1959 as amended by the Regulation of 1970 and accordingly, their claim does not hold any water. The Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the ﬁrst respondent holding so, is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel to the dismissal of the main petition, the interim order granted in W.P.M.P.No.28134 of 1987 is vacated and the W.P.M.P shall stand dismissed. ________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 21.10.2008 va