THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24676 of 1998 ORDER: 1 In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of the ﬁrst respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 08.06.1998 dismissing the revision petition ﬁled by him under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 conﬁrming the order of the Agent to Government dated 26.03.1987 passed in SEA No.5/86 and order of the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) dated 20.03.1986 passed in S.R.Nos.800/82 and 794/82. 2 The petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.15-12 cents covered by Sy.Nos.13, 14, 20 and 40, and land admeasuring Ac.6-42 cents covered by Sy.Nos.6 and 37 of K.Knnapuram village of Buttayagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. It is stated that the land originally belongs to one Velpula Tataiah who is the maternal uncle of the petitioner and the said Tataiah died unmarried. It is stated that after the death of the said Tataiah, the father of the petitioner by name Pakanati Tataiah and his mother P.Mangamma succeeded the property and their names were mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner claims title and possession by virtue of succession from his parents. 3 Based on the complaint ﬁled by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare) Eluru, wherein it was complained that the petitioner who is a non- tribal is in possession of the aforesaid lands in contravention of Sections 3 (2) (4) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by regulation 1/70, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Eluru had initiated proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the lands in question. Petitioner was served with notice in Form - E as contemplated under Rule 7 (2) of the aforesaid regulations. In response to the same, the petitioner ﬁled a detailed explanation. Before the primary authority the petitioner had ﬁled documentary evidence under R.1 to R.4 and the petitioner himself was examined as R.W.1. But, no evidence was let in on behalf of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare) Eluru at whose instance the proceedings for eviction were initiated. In the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner, and also in his evidence, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no transfer of land in their favour in contravention of the provisions under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by regulation 1/70. In the documentary evidence ﬁled by him, the petitioner has ﬁled adangal extract under R.1 of 1392 fasli and extract of RSR extract for 1320 fasli under R.2. He has also ﬁled Encumbrance Certiﬁcate issued for the period from 01.01.1902 to 31.12.1917 under R.3 and another Encumbrance Certiﬁcate issued for the period from 01.01.1916 to 31.12.1930 under R.4 in support of his plea that there was no transfer of land in their favour. The primary authority, without recording any ﬁnding with regard to transfer of land in violation of the aforesaid Regulations, has merely held that there is some discrepancy with regard to the surname of the original owner and passed order of eviction. The primary authority has further recorded a ﬁnding that the whereabouts of the original owner are not known and ultimately ordered to take the land into Government’s custody and to assign the same to eligible tribals. 4 As against the order of the primary authority, the petitioner has carried the matter by way of appeal before the Agent to Government of West Godavari District. Even the appellate authority also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner pointing out the discrepancy in the surname of the original owner Thathaiah and also recording a ﬁnding that the petitioner / non-tribal has not proved possession from the year 1917 onwards and that no tribal was in possession of the land in question at any point of time. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had carried the matter in revision as per Clause 6 of the Regulations, which was dismissed by G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 08.06.1998 impugned in this Writ Petition. Hence the present Writ Petition. 5 In this Writ Petition, it is contended by Sri Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the very initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1/70 is per se illegal as there is no transfer of land in favour of the petitioner in contravention of the said regulations. It is further submitted that in spite of a valid explanation ﬁled by the petitioner and the oral and documentary evidence produced before the primary authority, without recording any ﬁnding on transfer, but simply noticing the discrepancy of surname of the original owner, who is the maternal uncle of the petitioner, the order of eviction was passed. It is further submitted that the petitioner had availed the remedies of statutory appeal and revision before the authorities, but they have not considered the various grounds raised by the petitioner in proper perspective and rejected the claim of the petitioner. 6 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he is in continuous possession of the land from 1917 onwards and in that view of the matter, as the petitioner has not discharged his burden as contemplated under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by regulation 1/70, the order of eviction is passed. It is further submitted that in view of the concurrent ﬁndings given by the authorities at all levels, there is no ground to interfere with the said order of eviction passed by the respondents. 7 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the primary authority as well as the orders passed by the appellant and revisional authorities. From a perusal of the said orders, it is very clear that the respondents have not focussed on the core issue which is required to be focussed while ordering eviction under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by regulation 1/70. As per the scheme of the Regulations referred above, the authorities are empowered to order eviction only in case it is found that non-tribals are in possession of scheduled area in contravention of the Regulations. A Full Bench of this Court while interpreting the various provisions of the Regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70 in the case of Gaddam Narasa Reddy and others Vs. Collector, Adilabad District and Others[1] had held that the Regulations are prospective in operation and unless there is any violation of the Regulation, the respondent authorities are not empowered to order eviction. 8 From a perusal of the order passed by the primary authority, it is clear that there is no ﬁnding with regard to transfer of the scheduled land in question in contrary to the regulation. On the other hand, the petitioner has taken a clear stand that there is no transfer of land in contravention of the aforesaid Regulations and he has also produced the documentary evidence under Exs.R.1 to R.4. When such documentary evidence is ﬁled to show that there is no transfer, the said documentary evidence is misinterpreted and by merely recording some discrepancy with regard to the surname of the original owner, the order of eviction is passed. Even the appellate authority has also not considered the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner in proper perspective and it conﬁrmed the order of eviction passed by the primary authority on the very same ground of discrepancy in surname of the original pattedar. Further, the appellate authority had curiously recorded a ﬁnding that the petitioner failed to prove his possession over the land in question continuously from 1917 onwards. It is true that as per the Regulations, burden is on the petitioner whenever there is an allegation of transfer, in contravention of the aforesaid Regulations. But the initial burden to show that there is a transfer in contravention of the aforesaid Regulations is always on the respondent authorities. In absence of discharging the initial burden by the respondent authorities in spite of their allegation that there is transfer in violation of the Regulations, the petitioner cannot be evicted only on the ground that he has not established his continuous possession over the land in question from 1917 onwards. Even the revisional authority has also not recorded any ﬁnding with regard to the alleged transfer, but simply conﬁrmed the order passed by the appellate authority. 9 From a perusal of the orders passed by all the authorities in this case, it is a clear case where the respondent authorities have not adverted to the core issue and ordered eviction in a most casual and mechanical manner. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the primary authority ordering eviction of the petitioner from the lands in question, as conﬁrmed by the appellate and revisional authorities is liable to be set aside. 10 For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed accordingly the order passed by the primary authority i.e. the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Eluru in SR.Nos.800/82 and 794/82 dated 20.03.1986, as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority i.e. Agent to the Government, West Godavari District, Eluru in SEA No.5/86 by order dated 26.03.1987 and further conﬁrmed by the revisional authority in G.O.Ms.No.56 Social Welfare (LTR-1) Department, dated 08.06.1998 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. --------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 01.12.2011 Kvsn [1] AIR 1982 A.P. (1)