IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.14516 of 2000 Between: D. Narsimha Goud, S/o Acha Goud, R/o Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by Secretary to Government, Social Welfare (L.T.R.) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P./The Revision Authority, Under A.P.Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation 1959, cum the Hob'ble Tribal Minister, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector/Agent to the Government, Under A.P.Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation 1959, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 4 The Special Deputy District Collector / (Tribal Welfare)/The Agency Divisional Officer, Under A.P.S.L.T. Regulation Act 1959 Utnoor, Adilabad 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/orders, direction/directions, or issue an appropriate writ, more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari:- (i) Quash the orders passed by the respondent No.1 herein in Revision Petition vide G.O.Ms.No.35, Social Welfare (LTR) Dept., dt: 17-4-2000 (ii) Declare the delegation of the Judicial revision powers by the State Govt. i.e. the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 is illegal, and arbitrary, (iii) Declare Section 6 of the A.P. Schedule Area Land Transfer regulation 1959, giving Judicial powers to the State Govt. (Quasi Judicial Authority) is bad in law; (iv) Declare the exercise of the Suo-moto powers by the Agency Divisional Oﬃcer under the AP Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, for ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed land after 19 years of execution of registered sale deed is illegal, and arbitrary; (v) Declare that the actual alienation of the disputed land of the petitioner was made in te year 1964, prior to the enforcement of Sec. 3 of the APSA, Land Transfer regulation 1959; (vi) Declare the action of the respondent in evicting the petitioner from the disputed land is illegal, arbitrary, voilative of Art. 14, 21 of the constitution of India, and contrary to the aim and object and the mandatory provisions of APSLTR-1959; and to pass any such other order or orders as deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.14516 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner claimed to have purchased an extent of Acs.12.02 gts of agricultural land in Survey No.144 of Moghad Dhagad Village, Kouthala Mandal, Adilabad District (property in agency area) from one Marta Rajalingu, a non-tribal, under an unregistered instrument on a non-judicial stamp paper of a value of Rs.1.50 paise (Rupee one and paise ﬁfty only) on 12.03.1964 on payment of consideration Rajalingu. He claims to have been delivered possession of the property contemporaneous with the above instrument. It is pleaded herein that the properties belong jointly to Bandi Yellaiah, Bandi Ushanna and Bandi Shivalingu, the brothers-in-law of Rajalingu. Rajalingu is the illotom-son- in-law of their family. The brothers-in-law were claimed to have orally allocated this property in favour of Rajalingu. Thereafter, Rajalingu executed the unregistered instrument in favour of the petitioner. It is speciﬁcally pleaded in para No.5 of the Writ Petition that in 1967, the brothers-in-law of Rajalingu had executed a registered sale deed in his favour and thereafter, Rajalingu executed a registered sale deed in the petitioner’s favour on 26.05.1977 in respect of the property in lis. After stating this chronology of facts, the petitioner claims that he derived title to the property in 1964 itself, though it was formalized by an act of registration on 26.05.1977. The fourth respondent, on the basis of the information obtained from the M.R.O., Kowthala, initiated suo motu enquiry under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (“the Regulations” for brevity). The fourth respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, why he be not rejected for acquiring a property in agency area in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 3 (1) of the Regulations. After a procedural process, the fourth respondent, by the order dated 27.08.1996, concluded that the petitioner had purchased property from Rajalingu, a non-tribal, in contravention of the Regulations and therefore, the petitioner was directed to be ejected while further ordering that the land be taken possession of for Government custody until ordered otherwise. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent under Regulation 3 (3) (a) (ii) and (iii) of the Regulations. The third respondent- appellate authority, by the order dated 08.12.1977, on a careful and cogent analysis of the material on record, concurred with the conclusion recorded by the fourth respondent, the primary authority, that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulations since it took place in the year 1977 under a registered instrument. Consequently, the third respondent dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision to the State Government. The ﬁrst respondent state by the order in G.O.Ms.No.35 Social Welfare (LTR) Department dated 17.04.2000 rejected the revision concurring with the factual analyses and the conclusions recorded by the primary and appellate authorities and conﬁrming the conclusion that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was in transgression of the provisions of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. Though it is pleaded in the Writ Petition and canvassed by Sri Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the revisional determination recorded by the Secretary to the Government in the order dated 17.04.2000 in G.O.Ms.No.35 is incompetent as there is no proper delegation to the Secretary to the Government of the powers that should have been exercised by the Honourable Minister, on further reﬂection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has eschewed this line of challenge and indicated that the petitioner would conﬁne the challenge to the merits of the primary and appellate orders. On merits, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since there was a transfer of the property (sale) in his favour from Rajalingu on 12.03.1964, though under an unregistered instrument, the said transfer being earlier to the date of enforcement of the amended legal environment brought about by Regulation 1 of 1970 and since as declared by a Full Bench of this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddy v. Collector, Adilabad District (FB) [1], the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1970 do not have retrospective operation, the transfer of the property in the petitioner’s favour on 12.03.1964 cannot be held to be in violation of Regulation 3 (1) of the Regulations. Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 1959, as originally enacted, did not invalidate transfers made by non-tribals in favour of non-tribals. By Regulation 1 of 1970, inter alia, amending Regulation 3 (1), a transfer of property in an agency area in favour of a non-tribal even a non-tribal is prohibited and declared void and unenforceable. On a true and fair analysis of the phraseology of Regulation 1 of 1970, the Full Bench of this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddy v. Collector, Adilabad District (FB) (1 supra) concluded and declared the position that the provisions of the Regulations as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 do not have retrospective operation though the power to make a retrospective operation is available under Schedule V of the Constitution. In paragraph 31 of this judgment, the learned Full Bench, however, observed that the question whether transfers made prior to coming into force of the amended Regulation 1 of 1970, are invalid either for want of registration under the Indian Registration Act or for non-compliance of other provisions and whether the transferee would be entitled to the beneﬁts of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can be gone into in a forum constituted for deciding such questions in respect of the lands in Scheduled Areas. The power of the jurisdictional authorities is explicated by the provisions of the Regulations and the inherence of such power and authority is immunized by a non-obstante provision. Though it is faintly attempted on behalf of the petitioner to impeach the jurisdiction of these respondents/authorities under the Act, there is no serious legal argument addressed as to the competence of respondents 1, 3 and 4, to exercise revisional, appellate and primary adjudicative powers. In the factual matrix apparent in this case, the claimed transfer in favour of the petitioner in 1964 from Rajalingu was by an unregistered instrument. The petitioner admits that the brothers-in-law had conveyed the property to Rajalingu by a registered instrument only in the year 1967 and therefore, Rajalingu derived title to the property in the year 1967. The petitioner also admits that Rajalingu conveyed the property to the petitioner under a registered instrument on 26.05.1977. In the circumstances, the claim by the petitioner that there was a transfer in his favour from Rajalingu, earlier on 12.03.1964 itself, is a claim that is vacuous and with no legal foundation. The transfer was made after coming into force of the Regulations including the amendments qua Regulation 1 of 1970, on 26.05.1977 under the registered sale deed executed by Rajalingu in favour of the petitioner. This is the concurrent analysis and conclusion by the primary, appellate and revisional authorities, a conclusion that suﬀers from no error or inﬁrmity in law and therefore, impeachable. Another contention urged by the petitioner is that the suo motu exercise by the fourth respondent leading to the issuance of the ejectment order on 27.08.1976 is unsustainable, as the exercise is beyond a reasonable period even if reckoned from 26.05.1977; the date Rajalingu executed the registered sale deed in the petitioner’s favour. Reliance for this preposition is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in I.T. Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam v. K.Suresh Reddy[2]. In the considered view of this Court, this contention is without any merit and substance and ought to be rejected. The petitioner has not chosen to canvass the arbitrariness of the belated suo motu enquiry in either the primary, appellate or revisional proceedings. Be that as it may, in I.T. Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam v. K.Suresh Reddy (2 supra), the Court was considering the validity of the delayed exercise of a suo motu revisional power under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The facts and circumstances and the legislative environment as well as the revisional power exercised by the Collector under Section 50-B of the 1950 Act is wholly diﬀerent from the comparable position under the provisions of the Regulations. Under the 1950 Act, Section 50-B was introduced in 1964 authorizing the Tahsildar to validate the alienations eﬀected by any registered sale deeds till March 1972. Applications made during March 1972 for validation of sale deeds were allowed and validation certiﬁcations were issued by the Tahsildar in 1974 and 1975. As there were large scale complaints as to fraudulent issuance of validation certiﬁcates, to provide a remedy for correction of such fraudulent conduct of public oﬃcials, by Act 2 of 1979, the amendment was introduced to Section 50-B of the 1950 Act granting in suo motu revisional powers on the Collector to cancel or uphold the certificates. Exercising suo motu revisional power in the above legislative and factual context, notices were issued 13 to 15 years after the grant/issue of validation certificates. It is in such factual context that the Division Bench of this Court held that the exercise of revisional power by the Collector is arbitrary for having been exercised after an unreasonable delay. The legislative context under the Regulations is entirely diﬀerent. The Regulations per se declare a transfer made in violation of the provisions of the Regulations void and unenforceable. The Regulations are enacted by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under Schedule V of the Constitution of India. The scheme of the Constitution discloses that this power in the nature of a legislative power is conferred on the Governor of the State with a view to preserve the rights and cultural ambience of the Tribal inhabitants of Tribal areas against intensive conduct by non-Tribals. The Regulations made under Schedule V are conceived for the protection of tribals from the general acquisitive conduct. Regulation 3 declares the invalidity of the prohibited class of transfers in emphatic terms, to be absolutely null and void. To eﬀectuate such declaration of invalidity, the speciﬁed executive agencies are conferred a power, after following the due process to order ejectment of a transferee who has obtained transfer of the property contrary to the provisions of the Regulations. On such ejectment, the property vests in the State to be disposed of in favour of members of a Scheduled Tribe or a society registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, which is comprised exclusively by the members of a Scheduled Tribe. The ameliorative provisions of the Regulations conceived in the interests of the Scheduled Tribes from the rapacious influence of non-tribals cannot be permitted to be jettisoned by the executive inaction. The Executive owes a ﬁduciary obligation to eﬀectuate the provisions of the Regulations. In any event, the declaration of the invalidity of transfer is enjoined by the Regulations itself, the exercise by the quasi judicial agencies such as respondents 1, 3 and 4 is only a determination of the fact situation and thereafter, the application of the provisions of the Regulations follows automatically. In the case on hand, the order impugned as conﬁrmed in appeal and revision is an order of ejectment, which is an order in execution of the declaration of the invalidity of the transfer enjoined by the Regulation itself. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the orders challenged in this Writ Petition warrant no interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. __________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) ___________________ (P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J) 6th September 2008 RRB [1] AIR 1982 AP 1 [2] 1996 (2) ALD 95 (D.B.)