IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11737 of 2002 Between: Karimikonda Jaggarao. … Petitioner And The Agent to Government/District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.R.K.Amarendra Kumar. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Social Welfare. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 9-12-1997 and 25-2-2001 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. Heard Sri P.R.K.Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The dispute pertains to Ac.0.74 cents of land in R.S.No.698/1 of Buttaigudem village and Mandal, West Godavari District. On the ground that the petitioner violated the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short “Regulation 1/59”) as amended by Regulation 1/70, proceedings were initiated by respondent No.2 for restoration of the said extent of land from the petitioner’s possession. In reply to the notice, the petitioner ﬁled his explanation, wherein he has taken the stand that the extent of Ac.7.87 cents originally belonged to one Sri Karatam Satyanarayana; that he sold the said property to Sri Cherukuri Satyam and others under registered document No.1337/60 dated 21-9-1960; that the said Cherukuri Satyam sold the said property to Pallapothu Rama Brahmam under registered document No.353/65 dated 17-4-1965; and that the said Rama Brahmam in turn sold the said property to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 16-4- 1968. His further case is that earlier when similar proceedings were issued in respect of Ac.5.88 cents of land, forming part of the above mentioned total extent of Ac.7.87 cents, respondent No.2 by his order dated 18-8-1992 ordered for restoration of land in favour of the petitioner, that as the extent of Ac.0.74 cents continued to be shown in the name of Karatam Satyanarayana, the original owner, relinquished his right in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the sale deed standing in his name; and that, therefore, neither of the two Regulations have been violated. Respondent No.2, having considered the explanation of the petitioner, passed order dated 9- 12-1997, wherein he allowed the claim ﬁled by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (T.W) No.1, K.R.Puram, and directed ejection of the petitioner from the schedule land. The said order having been conﬁrmed in appeal by respondent No.1 by her order dated 25-2- 2001, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 shows that the petitioner deposed before him as RW.1 to the eﬀect that he purchased the extent of Ac.7.87 cents from Pallothu Rama Brahmam under registered sale deed No.419/68 dated 16-4-1968, marked as Ex.R.2; that while there was already an order passed by respondent No.2 in respect of Ac.5.88 cents in favour of the petitioner, the balance extent of Ac.0.74 cents, which continued to be recorded in the name of the original owner-Karatam Satyanarayana, was relinquished by him in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 having taken note of the above mentioned deposition of the petitioner and the documents ﬁled by him to establish that he purchased Ac.7-87 cents in the year 1968 itself, ordered for petitioner’s ejection on the ground that until contrary is proved any immovable property situated in Agency tracts and in the possession of a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe shall be presumed to have been acquired by the said person or his predecessor in possession through a transfer made to him by a member of a Scheduled Tribe. In her order respondent No.1 observed that according to the village accounts the land under claim is classiﬁed as “Government Wet”, whereas letter dated 21-9- 1993 executed by Karatam Satyanarayana and the recitals in the registered sale deed dated 21-9-1960 and 17-4-1965 show the same as “Inam land”. On that premise, respondent No.1 declined to interfere with the order passed by the primary authority-respondent No.2. Under Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1/70, no non-tribal can purchase the property situated in agency area. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in G.Narsa Reddy Vs. Collector, Adilabad District1) these Regulations have no retrospective operation. Any transaction entered into by a non-tribal, after coming into force of Regulation 1/70 would be hit by the provisions of the said Regulation, whether such a transaction is between two non-tribals or between a non-tribal and a tribal. But, prior to that, there was no prohibition in respect of a transaction entered into between two non-tribals. It is not in dispute that in the instant case all the transactions, which took place in the years 1960, 1965 and 1968 were among the non- tribals. Under the last of the transactions, viz., registered sale deed 16-4-1968, the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.7.87 cents. His case is that during the survey operations the entire extent in R.S.No.698 was shown as Ac.0.74 cents and Ac.5.88 cents as against the extent of Ac.7.87 cents, which was shown to exist in that survey number prior to survey operations. It is the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that while in respect of Ac.5.88 cents there was already an order passed by respondent No.2 on 18-8-1992 directing restoration of the land in favour of the petitioner, there remained Ac.0.74 cents left over, which continued to stand in the name of Karatam Satyanarayana, the original owner, though the said extent is also covered by registered sale deed dated 16-4-1968 in favour of the petitioner. Neither of the two Tribunals below went into this speciﬁc question and negatived the contention of the petitioner in this regard. Respondent No.2, having taken note of this contention, merely stated that until contrary is proved, there is a presumption that the immovable property is transferred under the provisions of the two Regulations. Such an approach from a properly constituted quasi-judicial tribunal cannot be countenanced. In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to accept the plea of the petitioner that the extent of Ac.0.74 cents forms part of Ac.7.87 cents, which the petitioner purchased under registered sale deed dated 16-4-1968. As the said transaction was entered into prior to Regulation 1/70, the same is not hit by Regulation 1/59, which only prohibited transfer of immovable property from a tribal to non-tribal. Admittedly, the parties to sale deed dated 16-4-1968 being non-tribals, the said transaction does not get invalidated by the Regulations. Respondent No.1 has observed that in the village accounts the land is classiﬁed as wet land, whereas in the letter dated 21-9-1993 executed by Karatam Satyanarayana and the recitals in the registered sale deed, the land is shown as Inam land. While making these observations, respondent No.1 conﬁrmed the order of respondent No.2. As a fact, respondent No.2 in his order has not given any speciﬁc ﬁnding on the nature of the land. Respondent No.1 while making those observations has not discussed about the implications of the variation in the nature of the land. Therefore, those observations are of no consequence at all. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. ---------------------- ------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:08-08-2008 MNR 1) AIR 1982 AP.1