IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 466 of 2001 BETWEEN: Banda Ranga Reddy (died) Per LRs. 1 Banda Satyamma, W/o. Late Ranga Reddy, R/o. Thogudem, Pinapaka (M), Khammam District. 2 Banda Somi Reddy, S/o. Late Ranga Reddy, R/o. Thogudem, Pinapaka (M), Khammam District. 3 Banda Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late Ranga Reddy, R/o. Thogudem, Pinapaka (M), Khammam District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Special Dy. Collector, and (TW), Paloncha, Khammam District. 2 Agent to Govt.,/ Dist, Collector, Khammam District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka (M), Khammam District. 4 Sri Tolem Hanumaiah, S/o. not known, Janampeta (v), Pinapaka (M), 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 may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by 1st respondent in case No. 278/88/PNK dt.30-3-1988 and order issued by 2nd respondent in CMA.No.47/99 dt.5-12-2000 are illegal, arbitrary, without authority, and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners assail the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha, Khammam District, the ﬁrst respondent herein, in case No.278/88/PNK dated 30.03.1988, conﬁrmed by the Agent to the Government/District Collector, Khammam District, the second respondent herein, in CMA.No.47 of 1999 by order dated 05.12.2000. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the land admeasuring Ac.3.17 guntas in Sy.Nos.321 and 322, Pinapaka (Village & Mandal), Khammam District was purchased by the grandfather of the petitioners 2 and 3 in the year 1968. The grandfather is said to have expired in the year 1979 and thereafter, Sri Banda Ranga Reddy, the husband of the ﬁrst petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 and 3, also died on 27.07.2000 leaving them as the heirs to the subject property. The said land was allegedly sold to the petitioners’ ancestor by one Bolisetti Viswanadham, a non-tribal. The petitioners also cite the fact that Sri Banda Ranga Reddy applied for and obtained validation for the purchase, under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 3. While so, it is stated that the ﬁrst respondent initiated proceedings against Sri Banda Ranga Reddy under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 read with Regulation I of 1970. These proceedings were initiated on the ground that the subject land was situated in a scheduled area and was alienated in violation of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Regulation. It is stated by the petitioners that the ﬁrst respondent, without providing proper opportunity of hearing to him passed orders of eviction on 30.03.1988. Against the said order, an appeal was ﬁled before the second respondent claiming that the sale transaction pertaining to the land was eﬀected prior to the coming into force of the Regulation I of 1970 and was accordingly not hit by the prohibition enjoined by the said Regulation. However, by order dated 05.12.2000, the second respondent dismissed the appeal. 4. The petitioners raised various contentions on facts stating to the eﬀect that the orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Regulation of 1959 read with Regulation of 1970 aﬀected their livelihood as the authorities were trying to disturb their possession on the basis of the said orders. 5. This Court by an interim order dated 19.01.2001 directed the respondents to maintain status quo existing as on that date in all respects. 6. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent stating to the eﬀect that the Special Revenue Inspector, TW, Paloncha, submitted a report on 21.07.1988 to the ﬁrst respondent that Sri Banda Ranga Reddy was in occupation of the subject land in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation of 1959 read with Regulation of 1970. It is stated that one Sri Tolem Hanumaiah, the fourth respondent herein, also made a complaint to the same eﬀect. Consequently, the proceedings were initiated under the Regulation of 1959 read with Regulation of 1970 and a notice dated 07.02.1988 was issued to Sri Banda Ranga Reddy under Rule 7(2) of the Agency Rules. However, he refused to accept the same constraining the authorities to eﬀect service by aﬃxation on the premises. It is further stated that Sri Banda Ranga Reddy intentionally did not participate in the proceedings and accordingly, the ﬁrst respondent, after considering the material on record passed orders dated 30.03.1988 directing his ejection from the subject land. In the appeal ﬁled by Sri Banda Ranga Reddy against the said order dated 30.03.1988, the second respondent perused the revenue records and found that the name of Sri Banda Ranga Reddy was reﬂected in the occupation column only for the year 1970-71 and even the said entry was suspect, being in diﬀerent handwriting and ink. It is pointed out in the counter aﬃdavit that the appellate order records the fact that Sri Banda Ranga Reddy failed to prove that his purchase of the subject land was prior to the coming into force of the Regulation of 1970 and accordingly the second respondent dismissed the appeal. 7. Heard Sri K. Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 8. Various contentions on facts urged by the learned counsel need to eschewed from this adjudication as this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not undertake an enquiry into disputed questions of fact or adjudicate thereupon. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that apart from the factual aspects, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside on the ground that they were without jurisdiction. According to him, the proceedings ought not to have been initiated upon the report of the Special Revenue Inspector, TW, Paloncha and the complaint of the fourth respondent. He contended that prior to the coming into force of Regulation 1970, a sale transaction between non-tribals in respect of land in a scheduled area was not prohibited. It is his case that the authorities ought not to have taken up an enquiry when it was contended by Sri Banda Ranga Reddy that their transaction over the subject land was prior to the coming into force of the Regulation of 1970. 10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare contended that the distinction between alienations made by non-tribals and by tribals ceased to exist after the Land Transfer Regulation 1970 came into force on 03.02.1970. He contended that it was open to the authorities to verify and ascertain the truth of the assertion made by Sri Banda Ranga Reddy that their purchase was prior to the date 03.02.1970. 11. A reading of the orders impugned in the writ petition would show that in the ﬁrst instance, the primary authority, the ﬁrst respondent herein, issued a notice to Sri Banda Ranga Reddy, who failed to appear. After perusing the material on record he passed the order dated 30.03.1988. In the appeal, Sri Banda Ranga Reddy seems to have relied upon the Section 50-B certiﬁcate obtained by him under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and contended that in the light of the said validation, it was not open to the authorities to take action against him under the Regulation of 1959 read with the Regulation of 1970. The appellate authority, having perused the revenue records, found that the name of Sri Banda Ranga Reddy ﬁgured therein only for the year 1970-71 and even the said entry was suspect, being in a diﬀerent ink. The appellate authority also found that Sri Banda Ranga Reddy was not in a position to prove that he had purchased the subject land prior to the crucial date 03.02.1970. The appellate authority rejected the contention raised that the validation certiﬁcate obtained under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 endowed Sri Banda Ranga Reddy with protection from the provisions of the Regulations of 1959 and 1970. In any event, the said validation was found to be subsequent to 03.02.1970 and accordingly ignored by the appellate authority. 12. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioners claimed possession over the subject land from the year 1968. The records pertaining to the case were called for and it is found therein that Sri Banda Ranga Reddy in his grounds of appeal in CMA.No.47 of 1999 before the second respondent, categorically stated that his date of purchase of the subject land was in the year 1970. The burden of proof to show that the purchase of the land was prior to 03.02.1970, being the date when the Regulation of 1970 came into force, is on the petitioners. From the material on record, it is manifest that contradictory stands were taken by the petitioners and their predecessor-in-title in this regard. However, in the light of the admission made in the grounds of appeal that the purchase was in the year 1970, no beneﬁt of doubt can be extended to the petitioners and it can be safely presumed that the subject transaction was only after the coming into force of the Regulation of 1970 on 03.02.1970. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that the validation obtained under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 also does not mention the date of transaction. The validation under Section 50-B of the Act of 1950 is subsequent to 03.02.1970. Further, validation of the purchase under the provisions of that Act does not insulate the petitioners from the application of the provisions of the Regulations of 1959 and 1970. 13. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings initiated under the Regulation of 1959 read with Regulation of 1970 were without jurisdiction does not hold water. The Regulation of 1970 did away with the distinction, which existed prior thereto, in respect of transactions by non-tribals as compared to transactions by tribals pertaining to land in scheduled areas. After 03.02.1970, the land in scheduled areas could not be subjected to alienation by tribals and non-tribals alike, in violation of the provisions of the Regulation of 1959 read with Regulation of 1970. If the petitioners claim that their transaction was protected from such prohibition, being prior to the crucial date 03.02.1970, it was for them to assert and prove the same. Having failed to do so, it is not open to the petitioners, at this stage, to raise technical pleas as to the manner in which the proceedings were initiated against them. The Land Transfer Regulations of 1959 and 1970 are directed at protecting and safeguarding the scheduled areas, homeland of the tribals, so as to perpetuate and propagate their unique customs and distinct style of living. The yeoman objective of these Regulations has to be kept in mind while dealing with the exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities under these Regulations. The fact remains that the petitioners, being non-tribals, are seeking to assert rights over the land in a scheduled area and it is also manifest that they are not in a position to show that the transaction, which is their source of title and ownership is not struck by the prohibition enjoined by the said Regulations. The writ petition is therefore found to be devoid of merit and the orders under challenge, being lawful, valid and correct are eminently sustainable in law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J November 5, 2008 DSK