IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 8021 of 2001 BETWEEN: Chitturi Venkatarao (died), Per LR Chitturi Bapiraju, S/o Sriramulu, R/o. Mysannagudem Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, W.G. Dist. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Agent to Government/District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari. 2 The Special Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare, K.R. Puram. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttaigudem Mandal, W.G. Dist. ...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 one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent in S.R.A.No.6/94 dated 14-2-2001 in which he conﬁrmed the orders of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Eluru in S.R.No.196/79 dated 18-12-1981 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Article, 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and 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 Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER: Chitturi Bapiraju is brought on record as legal representative of his own brother, Late Chitturi Venkatarao, petitioner herein and they are the sons of late Sriramulu. At the instance of the fourth respondent – non-tribal the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Eluru ﬁled a complaint under Section 3(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation I of 1959 as amended by Regulation I of 1970 alleging that the petitioner is in possession of scheduled land of an extent of Ac.11.97 cents in Sy.No.450/1 & 450/2 situated at Ganapavaram Village, Buttaigudem Mandal of the erstwhile Polavaram Taluk, West Godavari District. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru, took up the case in S.R.No.196 of 1979 and gave an order ejecting the respondent/petitioner herein from the scheduled mentioned land and restoring it in favour of one Komaram Veerappa. 2. Against the earlier ejectment order the petitioner ﬁled an appeal in S.R.No.3 of 1980 on the ﬁle the Agent to the Government (Collector, West Godavari District) and the appellate authority setting aside the order remanded the matter to the Special Deputy Collector. That is how S.R.No.196 of 1979 was taken for fresh enquiry and after conducting enquiry the second respondent by order dated 18.12.1981 holding that the land was a patta land of a tribal namely Komaram Tirupati as on 16.07.1915 and the patta granted was prior to the enactment Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917 and there is no evidence that goes to show that the scheduled land belonging to the tribal was passed on to the non-tribal after the enactment of Act I of 1917 and accordingly ejectment order was passed. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.12.1981 the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Agent to the Government S.R.A.No.6 of 1994 and the appellate authority came to the conclusion that Komaram Tirupati – a tribal was pattadar as per R.S.R. of 1902 and there is no evidence that goes to show that non-tribal came into possession of the said land as on the date of Regulation I of 1917. Accordingly, it was presumed that the said land belongs to a tribal and there is no transaction hit by Regulation I of 1917 and Regulation I of 1959. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 14.02.2001. Aggrieved by the said order this writ petition has been filed in 2001. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim stay. Admittedly against the orders passed by the Agency Divisional Oﬃcer an appeal lies to the Agent to the Government under Section 3 (3) (a) and Under Section 6 of Regulation I of 1959 the Government has got wide revisional powers to revise any decree or order passed by the Agent, Agency Divisional Oﬃcer or any other prescribed oﬃcer under the Regulation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to permit the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision before the Government. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting the petitioner to ﬁle a revision before the Government against the order of the Agent to the Government in S.R.A.No.6 of 1994 dated 14.02.2001 within two weeks from today and if any such revision is ﬁled within two weeks, status quo obtaining as on today with regard to the schedule property shall be maintained pending disposal of the revision. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 7, 2008 DSK