THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU On Wednesday, the twenty fifth day of January, two thousand and six . W.P.No. 10409 of 1997 Pathi Ganga Raju ….Petitioner. And: The Principal Secretary to Government, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. ……..Respondents. O R D E R: The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare (4th respondent) gave a complaint under the A.P.Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1954 (the Regulation) to the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), West Godawari District (3rd respondent) that petitioner, who is a non-tribal, is in possession of Ac.1.86 cents in R.S.No.32/4 of P.Narayanapuram village, an agency village, and so he has be evicted. 2) The case of the petitioner that he purchased the aforesaid land under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.1974 from Batchala Ayanna, s/o Sarabaiah for Rs.2,000/- and so he cannot be evicted. After both parties adduced evidence, by the order dated 24.9.1979, 3rd respondent directed ejection of the petitioner from the aforesaid land. Appeal to the Agent to the Government (District Collector), West Godawari District (2nd respondent) in S.R.No.91 of 1996 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.7.1996. Aggrieved thereby petitioner preferred a revision to the government, which was ultimately dismissed by the order impugned in this petition. Hence, the petition. 3) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner purchased the land in dispute under an agreement dated 15.2.1969 and obtained the registered sale deed from the owner subsequently on 20.11.1994, in view of the ratio in Munja Vs. Parchaki Raju and others possession of the petitioner is referable from 1969 and so the Regulations as amended in 1970 cannot be invoked by the respondents to dispossess the petitioner and so the order impugned is not sustainable. 4) The contention of the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent is that since there is no whisper about the existence of an agreement of sale dated 15.2.1969 either before the 3rd respondent or before the 2nd respondent, and since existence of such an agreement was mentioned for the first time during the pendency of the revision before the Government, it is clear that the said agreement was brought into existence for the purpose of this case and so that agreement need not and cannot be taken into consideration. It is also their contention that the fact that the agreement was brought into existence for the purpose of this case is apparent on the face of the agreement itself in view of the fact that the stamp used therefor is not in the name of the parties to the document, and the stamp is of a value much higher than that is really required, and since the recitals therein also prima facie cannot be true, when read in conjunction with the recitals in the sale deed. 5) It is no doubt true that petitioner did not refer to the agreement dated 15.2.1969 in the proceedings before the 3rd and 2nd respondents and came forward with a plea that he has agreement of sale dated 15.2.1969 in his favour for the first time in the revision before the Government. Since some evidence has to be adduced to decide about the genuineness or otherwise of the agreement relied on by the petitioner, merely on the basis of oral assertions, the truth, validity and genuineness of the agreement relied on by the petitioner cannot be decided by this Court in this petition. So, I deem it necessary to remit the case to the 3rd respondent for fresh disposal according to law, after affording an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence on the agreement dated 15.2.1969. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.1,000/- into the Chief Justice Relief Fund within 15 days from today, because the necessity to remand arose due to the laches of the petitioner and in the absence of the agreement petitioner admittedly has no case in this petition. 6) Therefore, the writ petition stands allowed and the order impugned would stand set aside and the case would be remitted to the 3rd respondent for fresh disposal according to law after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence with regard to agreement dated 15.2.1969, on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.1,000/- to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within 15 days from today. In default petition stands dismissed with costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU 25th January 2006. BCS