IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12333 of 2001 Between: Jangili Venkaiah S/o late Narasimhulu R/o Marrigudem Village Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P. Rep. by itss Secretary Social Welfare (LTR.2) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Agent to Government, Khammam 3 Special Dy. Collectpr (TW) Paloncham, Khammam District. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandrugonda Mandal Khammam District. 5 Bythi Pashappa, S/o late Rajulu R/o Marrigudem (V) Chandrugonda (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 will be pleased to to issue Writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st Respondent issued in G.O.Ms.No.50 dt: 23-5-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondetns and their staﬀ not to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Act 2-00 in Ssy.No. 203/Aa, 204, 206 and 207 of Telegerla Village, Chandrugonda (M), Khammam District Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12333 of 2001 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.203/AA, 204, 206 and 207 situated at Telijerla village of Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District, having purchased the same on 15.03.1960 from one Madi Laxmudu and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that after the death of the said Madi Laxmudu, i.e. the vendor of the petitioner, after long lapse of 27 years, one late Baiti Laxmaiah, representing himself as illatom son-in-law of Madi Laxmudu made a complaint before the Government complaining that the petitioner came into illegal possession of the said property. On the said complaint, a case was ﬁled before the Special Deputy Collector, Paloncha in Case No.4/Apt/85, dated 09.07.1985 and the said Special Deputy Collector, Paloncha ordered eviction, against which the petitioner ﬁled C.MA.25/85 on the ﬁle of the Agent to Government. The Agent to Government, while setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Paloncha, by order dated 23.02.1987, remanded the case to the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Paloncha for fresh enquiry and disposal with the following observations; 1. that the order of the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare is silent about the cultivators column right from 1963; 2. that the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare has not examined the attesting witnesses to the document of sale transaction took place on 15-3-1960; and 3. that he has not conducted elaborate enquiry to conclude that the document is anti-date; It is stated that pursuant to the remand order, the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Paloncha enquired into the matter in Case No.4/85/A-peta and with regard to ﬁrst point is concerned, he held that the perusal of the extracts of pahanies available in the ﬁle revealed that the name of the petitioner was shown as cultivator from the year 1959-60 onwards while the name of Madi Laxmudu was shown as pattedar. With regard to the second and third points are concerned, it is held that the petitioner examined the attesting witnesses and the scribe who have conﬁrmed the contents of unregistered sale deed dated 15.03.1960 and also stated that the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land since 1960 and that they are the adjacent landowners, and the said Madi Laxmudu never cultivated the said land. The scribe Komaragiri Sitharama Chandar Rao who wrote the said document was also examined and he stated that Madi Laxmudu executed the said document after receiving the consideration and he had signed the document in his presence. The attesting witnesses who are the adjacent landowners also stated that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment, and thus, the 2nd and 3rd points are held in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent ﬁled appeal in CMA.24/1994 before the Agent to Government at Khammam, stating that his father was the illatom Alludu of the original pattedar namely Madi Laxmudu, and that the petitioner came into illegal possession of the subject land. The appellate authority-Agent to Government, without making any enquiry and without recording any evidence with regard to relationship in between the appellant and the original pattedar Madi Laxmudu, entertained the appeal and allowed the same without deciding the issue with regard to relationship in between the appellant i.e. 5th respondent -Bythi Pashappa and the original pattedar Madi Laxmudu and also without recording any ﬁnding with regard to delay in ﬁling the appeal, allowed the appeal, observing that the there is no legal sale document, and in so far as pahanies are concerned, it is stated that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer reported that the pahanies are forged by removing originally recorded names and by replacing with the petitioner name herein for the year 1960-61 and hence the pahanies were not taken into consideration. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ﬁled a revision before the Government and the Government in G.O.Ms.No.50, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, dated 23.05.2001, simply conﬁrmed the orders of the Agent to Government, without considering any of the contentions and the issues involved therein. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the sada sale deed cannot be accepted without the same duly stamped and registered. It is stated that the authorities can decide the legality and validity of the sada sale deed. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of G.Narsa Reddy vs. Collector, Adilabad Dist. [1] held that the validity or otherwise of the transfers made prior to Sec.3(1) or its amendments by Regulation-II of 1963 or I of 1970, coming into force, cannot be adjudicated upon under Sec.3(2) of the Regulation and the same has to be challenged in an appropriate Forum constituted for deciding disputes relating to immovable property situated in the schedule areas. Therefore, the said sale deed has to be taken into consideration. But, however, in the instant case, the sada sale deed was proved by examining the witnesses, the scribe and attestor. To dispute the said contention and the execution of the sale deed was not at all rebutted. In so far as the possession is concerned, the primary authority has clearly held that the revenue records goes to show the name of the petitioner in the revenue records for the year 1960 i.e. prior to regulation 1/70 which came into force with eﬀect from 03.02.1970. The Agent to the Government while setting aside the ﬁnding of the primary authority with regard to the possession of the petitioner, observed that as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer the pahanies were forged. Admittedly, the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer was not at all furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was not all given any opportunity with regard to the alleged report and without furnishing the report and without furnishing copies of the so called forged entries, the conclusion arrived at by the Agent holding that the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is correct is without any basis and against the principles of natural justice. I am of the opinion that when the Agent to the Government is hearing the appeal exercising the powers of quasi Government, he has to independently consider and dispose of the appeal based on contentions and averments made in the appeal, and he cannot set aside the order or the primary authority simply relying on the report said to have been submitted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer beyond the back of the petitioner and without furnishing the copy of the so called report to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts of the case, the order of the appellate authority-Agent to Government in CMA.24 of 1994, dated 16.10.1998, as conﬁrmed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.50, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, dated 23.05.2001 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Agent to the Government, Khammam for reconsideration and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner with regard to his possession as on the notified date. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 31.07.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Social Welfare (LTR.2) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Agent to Government, Khammam. 3 Special Dy. Collector (TW) Paloncha, Khammam District. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. 5 2. 2CCs to 6 2CD copies [1] AIR 1982 AP 1 (FB)