IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:12564 of 2001 Between: Yampati Laxma Reddy, S/o.Konda Reddy, R/o.Janampet Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Agent to Government, (District Collector), Khammam District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (T.W), Paloncha, Khammam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Koram Nagaiah, S/o.Not Known, R/o.Singareddypalli Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order, dated 16.04.2001 passed by respondent No.1 in CMA.No.138 of 1988. This case has a chequered history. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.3.07 guntas in Survey Nos.169 and 170 of Singareddipalli Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District, under a Sada sale deed from one Koppula Seethaiah, admittedly, a non-tribal, on 10.05.1966. Respondent No.2 initiated suo motu proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and passed order, dated 17.02.1972 for his ejectment in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.1.12 guntas in Survey No.170 of Singareddipalli Village. The said order was questioned by the petitioner before respondent No.1 in CMA.No.128 of 1976, which was dismissed on 01.07.1976. However, the petitioner ﬁled I.A.No.25 of 1977 to review the said order. Through his order, dated 10.06.1977, respondent No.1 allowed the said I.A. and set aside the order of respondent No.2 on the basis of the aﬃdavit ﬁled by Sri Koram Krishnaiah, who stated that his father Koram Venkaiah sold the land admeasuring Acs.3.07 guntas to K.Seethaiah in 1958; that a stamped agreement was executed in favour of the said Seethaiah in 1960 and that the said Seethaiah sold the land to the petitioner on 10.05.1966. The said order has become ﬁnal. Almost ten years later, respondent No.2 initiated suo motu proceedings, wherein Koram Nagaiah was shown as the petitioner, and by his order, dated 20.06.1988, he directed ejectment of the petitioner herein and restoration of the land to Koram Nagaiah, respondent No.4 in this writ petition. The said order was questioned in CMA.No.138 of 1988 by the petitioner. When the said appeal was pending before respondent No.1, respondent No.2 suo motu initiated another case, wherein one Komaram Narasaiah was shown as the petitioner. After holding an enquiry, in his order, dated 25.05.1995, respondent No.2 observed that the original pattadar executed a Sada sale deed in 1958 in favour of Koppula Seethaiah and the said Seethaiah executed a Sada sale deed on 20.04.1966 in favour of the petitioner. He relied on xerox copies of pahani extracts for the years 1962-63, 1970-71, 1976-77, 1980-81 and 1989-90 and held that the transfer of immovable property belonging to the Scheduled Tribe was made to the non-tribal prior to 01.12.1963, i.e., the date on which Regulation 1 of 1959 came into force and that the non-tribal transferred the land to the petitioner prior to 03.02.1970, the date on which regulation 1 of 1970 came into force. He categorically held that the transfers were not hit by the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the said order was not carried in appeal by the said Komaram Narasaiah and the same has become ﬁnal. Thereafter, CMA.No.138 of 1988 ﬁled by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.1 on 16.04.2001. A perusal of the said order shows that respondent No.1 examined the revenue records, such as, pahanies from the years 1958-59 to 1972-73 and observed that as per the entries in the pahanies, the name of Komaram Venkaiah, Son of Paramaiah was recorded in the pattadar column for all the years from 1958-59 to 1963- 64 and the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the occupant’s column for the said years with diﬀerent inks and diﬀerent handwritings. He also observed that the said Venkaiah is the father of Komaram Nagaiah, respondent No.4 herein and that the entries in the occupant’s column of pahanies show that they were recorded subsequently with diﬀerent inks and diﬀerent handwritings with a mala ﬁde intention. With regard to the plea of the petitioner that he was not served with notice by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 stated that suﬃcient opportunity was given to the petitioner by respondent No.2. As noted above, the petitioner is subjected to as many as three rounds of litigation. In the ﬁrst round, though an adverse order was passed by respondent No.2, which was conﬁrmed by respondent No.1 in appeal, on a purported review ﬁled by the petitioner, the statement of Koram Krishnaiah was recorded, on the basis of which, respondent No.1 set aside the order of respondent No.2. In the second round, however, respondent No.2 who initiated the proceedings at the behest of respondent No.4, again directed eviction of the petitioner. When the appeal ﬁled against the said order was pending, respondent No.2 again initiated proceedings against the petitioner, wherein Komaram Narasaiah was shown as the party and described as the son of Venkaiah, who was the original owner. A contra view was taken by respondent No.2 in the said proceedings wherein the plea of the petitioner was accepted and a ﬁnding was recorded that the transactions between the original pattadar and Seethaiah in the ﬁrst instance and between Seethaiah and the petitioner later, are not hit by the Land Transfer Regulations. This order has become ﬁnal. Thus, there are conﬂicting opinions expressed about the nature of transactions, under which, the petitioner is claiming his right. Even the order passed by respondent No.1 was based on suspicion that as the occupant’s column in the revenue records was ﬁlled with diﬀerent inks, the record would have been fabricated. Respondent No.1 failed to record a speciﬁc ﬁnding as to who is responsible for fabrication of the record, and at what point of time, the record was fabricated. Admittedly, the record is in the custody of the revenue officials. If the record was fabricated, respondent No.1 ought to have held an enquiry and found as to who is responsible for fabrication of the record. It would quite well be that while recording the entries, diﬀerent inks would have been used. This by itself cannot be made a ground to jump to the conclusion that the records were fabricated. As the ﬁndings relating to the transactions entered into between the original pattadar and the vendor of the petitioner and between the petitioner’s vendor and the petitioner rendered in diﬀerent proceedings are mutually contradictory in nature, I am of the view that there is no justiﬁcation to subject the petitioner to further litigation. Already there are two orders in favour of the petitioner and they have become final. Under these circumstances, the order of respondent No.2 as confirmed by respondent No.1 is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni