THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6537 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioners claim that they have purchased an extent of 1.25 Hectares in R.S.No.231/1 and 1.00 Hectare of land in R.S.No.232/6 of Buttayagudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, through two separate sale deeds, dated 04.081967. The village was part of an estate. The estates in the State of Andhra Pradesh stood abolished with the enactment of A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Buttayagudem is in scheduled area. For abolition of estates and other ancillary activities, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of power, under para 5(2) of the V Schedule of the Constitution of India, framed A.P. (Scheduled Areas Settlement) Regulation, 1970 (for short “Regulation II of 1970”). It provides for the determination of claims in favour of the owners and possessors of the land and conferment of grant of ryotwari patta. The petitioners filed an application under Section 7 of the Regulation II of 1970 before the Settlement Officer. Their application was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements. Initially, an order was passed on 02.09.1997 dealing with part of the matter and keeping the rest pending. The petitioners filed an application of review under Section 16 (2) of Regulation II of 1970. Acting on the same, the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad passed a detailed order, dated 21.10.1998, recognizing the title of the petitioners and directing grant of patta in their favour in respect of the lands referred to above, duly modifying the order, dated 02.09.1997. The petitioners contend that during the pendency of the proceedings, they have been dispossessed by the authorities and though their appeal was allowed in the year 1998, no steps were taken to implement the same. They seek direction to the respondents to implement the order, dated 21.10.1998, and to deliver the possession. Respondent No.5 filed a counter-affidavit. According to him, though the lands were purchased by the petitioners in the year 1967, their brother by name Satyanarayana entered possession and on an application submitted by Smt.Bhoodevi, mother of respondent No.7, proceedings were initiated in S.R.No.23 of 1777 under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70 before the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, respondent No.3 herein, against Satyanarayana and several others. An order of resumption of possession was passed on 27.08.1977. S.R.A.No.10 of 1977 filed by Satyanarayana and others was dismissed on 30.11.1981 and in that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. On the same lines, respondent No.7 filed a counter- affidavit. Heard Smt.G.Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.7. The petitioners have purchased the lands referred to above under two separate sale deeds. Since they were part of estate, the petitioners submitted an application for grant of ryotwari patta before respondent No.6. Their application was dismissed and an appeal was preferred. There is some uncertainty as to the nature of orders passed in the appeal at different points of time. The fact, however, remains that the petitioners were dispossessed from the land when the appeal was pending. In a review filed by the petitioners, the appellate authority i.e. the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad passed a detailed order, dated 21.10.1998, holding that the petitioners are entitled to be granted ryotwari patta. This order has become final. The petitioners seek implementation thereof. Normally, the implementation of the orders of that nature would just entail in making of entries in the records concerned. The petitioners categorically state that they have been dispossessed during the pendency of the proceedings. The respondents, no doubt, admit the title of the petitioners. Their case, however, is that in the year 1977, the brother of the petitioners entered into possession and soon thereafter, the proceedings under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70 were initiated being S.R.No.23/77. The dispossession, which the petitioners pleaded, is traced to the order in S.R.No.23 of 1977. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the rights of the petitioners stood defeated on account of the orders passed in S.R.No.23 of 1977 or the appeal that arises out of it. Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70 is comprehensive and an overriding legislation compared to Regulation 2/70. In case there is any conflict between the separate orders passed under the two Regulations referred to above, the one passed under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70 would prevail. There is plethora of judicial authority for this. The proceedings under S.R.No.23 of 1977 were initiated against a large extent of land and the petitioners are not parties to it. The mere fact that the brother of the petitioners figured as one of the parties does not affect the rights of the petitioners. The net result is that the petitioners did not suffer any order under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70. Any steps taken in the proceedings to which the petitioners are not parties, do not bind them. The order passed by the appellate authority under Regulation 2/70 deserves to be honoured and implemented in every respect. Once the appellate authority held that the petitioners are entitled to be granted ryotwari patta, necessary consequence is that the entries must be made in conformity with that. Since the petitioners were dispossessed from the land without there being any order of eviction against them, the respondents shall restore possession thereof to the petitioners, within a period of three (3) months from today. It is, however, made clear that in case the ownership or enjoyment of the petitioners over the land is found to be contrary to Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70, it shall always be open to the individuals concerned or authority to initiate steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.03.2010. kdl