IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13270 of 2004 Between: 1 Desireddy Balakrishna Reddy, S/o Madhav Reddy, 2 Desireddy Basavamma, W/o Late Vekata Rami Reddy, 3 D. Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o Keshav Reddy, 4 D. Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o Sri Raghupathi Reddy, 5 Desireddy Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy, (All the petitioners are resident of Nagupalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District). ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary. 2 A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad, 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Board in issuing proceedings No. B/411/2003-98-99 dated 5-3-2004 as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over an extent of Ac. 20.28 guntas in S.No. 454/23/71/WOO of Nagupally Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: Heard Sri Badana Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the 3rd respondent. The writ petitioners are non-tribals in occupation of distinct extents of land, which are situated in a notified tribal area, in Sy.No. 454/23/71/WOO, Nagupally Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. One Smt Vasireddy Ratnakumari and her brother Vasireddy Ramgopalakrishna Rao had relinquished their rights over the land of an extent of Ac.400-00 in Sy.No.454/23/71, Nagupally Village in favour of the 1st respondent-Board. The 1st respondent in turn issued possession certificates on 7-5-1981 in favour of each of the petitioners for temporary management and temporary cultivation, duly specifying that the permission is liable to be cancelled at any time without assigning any reason. The possession certificates, which were in operation till the impugned order, is the basis of the petitioners’ entitlement to possession and occupation of the land in Nagupally Village. Petitioners submit that at the time of allotment by the 1st respondents, the land was not fit for cultivation, was full of shrubs, bushes and rocks and the petitioners by dint of hard labour and considerable investment brought the land to cultivation and have raised cashew nut plantation. They also assert that their possession and occupation of the land was verified by the revenue department. In 1990 certain tribal redsidents of Nagupally Village by name Nalabothula Mutyalu and others complained to the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha that the petitioners are in illegal possession of land in a tribal area and that steps be taken under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short ‘the LTR Regulation’), for their eviction. The Special Deputy Collector, Paloncha thereupon took up the matter as Case No. 10/90/DPT. By an order dated 17-4-1990, the authority rejected the complaint of the tribals by recording that the petitioners herein (respondents in the proceedings) were allotted the land by the 1st respondent herein under an assignment certificate; the land was given for temporary cultivation; they were enjoying uninterrupted possession and there was no transgression, in the circumstances, of the LTR Regulation. It requires to be noticed that the 1st respondent-Board was not a party to these proceedings and is therefore not bound by any observations or conclusions recorded by the Special Deputy Collector as to the assignments in favour of the petitioners being not in transgression of the LTR Regulation. On 16-5-2003 the 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice to each of the petitioners. In this notice, the 1st respondent asserted that possession certificates (Pondupati Patras) granted to the petitioners in 1981 was under a mistake of fact and in violation of the provisions of the LTR Regulation, liable for cancellation under Rule 9 (vii) of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 and that the petitioners must show-cause why the pattas issued to each of them be not cancelled. The petitioners submitted their explanations on 25-6-2003 claiming that they were in possession of the land for a number of years and were paying tax to the State. The explanation also asserted that earlier the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha had dismissed a similar claim by tribal petitioners and held that the petitioners’ possession does not violate the provisions of the LTR Regulation. The 1st respondent issued the impugned order dated 5-3-2004. After tracing out the history of the 1st respondent’s control and authority of the lands in question, the 1st respondent held that the lands are in a notified tribal village; that non-tribals are not entitled to transfer in their favour of such lands; that the petitioners are non-tribals; and that the possession certificates issued in their favour in 1981 was in violation of the provisions of the LTR Regulation. The 1st respondent held in conclusion that the possession certificates granted in favour of the petitioners are cancelled. Sri Badana Bhaskar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that as the petitioners are in long occupation of these lands eversince 1969, their possession is not in transgression of the LTR Regulation and therefore the conclusion of the 1st respondent that the possession certificates issued by it in 1981 in their favour violates the Regulations, is erroneous. Alternatively, the petitioners contend that there is an executive order issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.41, Revenue Department, dated 12-1-1971 whereunder in case Government land in a scheduled area is encroached upon by non-tribals, such encroachers, other than the landless poor persons shall be evicted and landless poor persons should not be evicted subject to a maximum extent of Ac.2-50 wet, and Ac.5-00 dry, unless such lands are needed for assignment to tribals. It is doubtful whether such an executive order could have been issued in the teeth of the LTR Regulation. At any rate, the lands in respect of which the petitioners were given possession certificates by the 1st respondent are not Government lands and never were the Government lands at any point of time. Therefore, the State Government has no power, authority or jurisdiction to legitimize or sustain unlawful occupation of these lands by non-tribals and particularly in contravention of the provisions of the LTR Regulations. Another contention by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 1st respondent initiated proceedings leading to the impugned order at the instance of the District Collector who has no power, authority or jurisdiction, to direct such a course of action. This contention is stated to be rejected. The 1st respondent is a body created under a statute, A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965. The District Collector is the representative of the State within the territory of the District and as such responsible for and liable to ensure the effective administration of the territories within his domain in accordance with the applicable laws of the land. The LTR Regulation is the law, which obligates the District Collector to ensure compliance of its provisions within his domain. Such obligation is the legitimate basis for the District Collector who had sensitized the 1st respondent-Board of the irregularity in its conduct in having issued possession certificates in favour of the petitioners in 1981. In any event, the 1st respondent is entitled to consider information received from any source for its action. The only issue is whether the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent is invalid. The lands are admittedly in a notified tribal Village. Admittedly and demonstratably the provisions of the LTR Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 are applicable to these lands. Equally clear is the position that transfer in favour of non- tribals, of land in tribal areas is prohibited under the provisions of the LTR Regulation. It is also the admitted position that issuance of a possession certificate for temporary management for cultivation by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioners in 1981 falls foul of the provisions of the Regulation and must therefore perish. In the light of these undisputed and indisputable circumstances and given the fact that the petitioners had been issued notices and their explanation was also considered before passing of the order, the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent suffers from no infirmity, warranting judicial review. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners may have alternative legal entitlement to the lands in question. If there be any such entitlement, the petitioners are always at liberty to canvass the same before the appropriate authority or Forum to support their possession. The cancellation of the possession certificates issued in 1981 by the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 5-3- 2003, however suffers from no infirmity warranting interference. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 29-7-2004 shall stand dissolved. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 1st May, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies