THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7900 OF 2001 Date: 25.02.2010 Between: Paleti Ramachandra Rao and another … Petitioners and The State of A.P. rep., by Secretary, Social Welfare (Tribunal Welfare Dept) A.P. Sectt, Hyderabad and five others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7900 OF 2001 ORDER: The petitioners herein seek a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Special Deputy Collector, Paloncha, Khammam District, in L.T.R case No.66 of 1994 dated 30.03.1994 as confirmed by the Agent to the Government and District Collector in C.M.A. No.10 of 1994 dated 04.07.1999. He also seeks to have the order of the Government in G.O.Ms. No.96 SW (LTR) Department dated 31.10.2000 and Memo No.18964/LTR2/2000-1 dated 26.02.2001 quashed and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to handover possession of 10 acres of land in Sy. No.114/1 situated in Mustiband village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District and issue pattas to them. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 1st petitioner’s maternal aunt Smt. Kammula Seshamma was a landless poor person; she purchased 10 acres of land in Sy. No.114/1 of Mustibanda village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District from respondent Nos.5 and 6 through their natural guardian i.e., Sri A. Ramadas in the year 1962 for a consideration of Rs.4,000/-; the sale transaction in the year 1962 was reduced on a plain paper as per the then prevailing practice in that part of the State; Sri A. Ramadas was a non-tribal and the Patwari of the village; the said land had been assigned by the 2nd respondent in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the year 1958-59 though they were minors at the time of assignment; ever since the year 1962 the land was under the continuous possession of Smt. K. Seshamma; she has been paying land revenue, from time to time, and was never in arrears thereof; the sale transactions between Smt. K. Seshamma and respondent Nos.5 and 6 was registered, by way of a registered sale deed, in the year 1971 and its scribe was none other than Sri A. Ramadas, the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6; the sale deed contained a recital that the land had been sold and possession was given way back in the year 1962 as per custom; the name of Sri K. Veeraswamy (husband of Smt. K. Seshamma) and the 1st petitioner’s name was recorded in the cultivator’s column of the pahanis for a period of more than 37 years from 1962-63 to 1998-99; respondent Nos.5 and 6 disputed the sale transactions and approached the Sub- Court, Sattupalli in 1990, seeking possession of the land, nearly 20 years after it was sold to Smt. K. Seshamma; the I.As filed by them was dismissed by the Sub-Court by order dated 14.02.1992, and the appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the District Court. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 approached the Special Deputy Collector, Paloncha, in Land Transfer Regulation (LTR) case No.66 of 1994, seeking possession of the land. In his order dated 30.03.1994, the Special Deputy Collector observed that the respondent (1st petitioner herein) had purchased the said land by way of registered sale deed on 20.12.1971 which was in contravention of Regulation 1 of 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970. As the land was assigned by the Government, the Special Deputy Collector directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta to take action against the petitioner herein under the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and hand over possession thereof to respondent Nos.5 and 6. Aggrieved thereby the 1st petitioner herein preferred C.M.A. No.10 of 1994 before the Agent to the Government (i.e., the Collector, Khammam) who, by order dated 04.07.1999, dismissed the appeal holding that the schedule land was Government assigned lands; the transaction was in contravention of the Lawvoni Rules and the LTR Regulations; and in the pahanis the name of the original Lawvoni pattedar was continuing without interruption till date as pattedars. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Government which, by order in G.O.Ms. No.96 dated 31.10.2000, observed that the revision petitioner did not adduce any documentary evidence, except the registered sale deed executed in the year 1972, which was not valid, to prove that the purchase of the petition schedule land was made prior to enforcement of Regulation 1 of 1970; the names of the petitioners and Smt. K. Seshamma were not found in the pahani which was contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970; no authenticated records were produced regarding sale of the land in the year 1962; Lawvoni patta lands could not be transferred without obtaining prior permission; the sale deeds were registered in the year 1972; the transaction was hit by the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970; and the Government had no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Agent to the Government, Khammam. The revision petition filed by the 1st petitioner was dismissed and the orders of the Agent to the Government, Khammam, in C.M.A. No. 10 of 1994, was confirmed. The petitioner preferred a review petition against the said order and the Government, vide memo No.18964/LTR.2/2000-1 dated 26.02.2001, held that the Agent to the Government had already passed a speaking order which was upheld by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.96 dated 31.10.2001 for the reasons mentioned therein and, therefore, the review petition was liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition. Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the 1st petitioner’s maternal aunt had purchased Ac.10.00 of land from respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the year 1962; had got it registered in the year 1971; and as such the said sale transaction was not hit by the Land Transfer Regulations; even if the land had been assigned by respondent Nos.5 and 6, under the Lawvoni Rules, Section 3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 did not render such transactions void as the petitioner’s aunt was a landless poor person and had purchased the land in good faith; the sale deed contained a recital that the property was purchased in the year 1962 which itself was proof that the sale transaction took place before the Land Transfer Regulations came into force; respondent Nos.5 and 6 had invoked the Land Transfer Regulations in the year 1994 i.e., 22 years after the sale deed was executed and, as such, the petition filed by them was barred by limitation under Regulation 7 of the Land Transfer Regulations; respondent Nos.5 and 6 had not furnished any details as to when they were dispossessed by the petitioner which itself was proof that the petitioner was in continuous possession of the land from the year 1962; this was further emphasized by the fact that the petitioner’s name was entered in the pahani from the year 1963 onwards; though respondent Nos.5 and 6 had initiated proceedings under the Land Transfer Regulations the Special Deputy Collector had passed orders under the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977; and respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not disclose before the authorities that they had persued the matter earlier before the Civil Court. Learned Counsel would rely on Kalagara Vighneswararao v. Government of A.P.[1] and Ashok v. Baba Rao[2]. Learned Government Pleader would contend that the land in question was a government poramboke; assignments were granted in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 as early as in the year 1959 and their names were recorded in the revenue records; since their names were continuously shown in the pattedar’s column of the pahanies no credence could be given to the petitioner’s contention that his aunt had purchased the property in the year 1962 from respondent Nos.5 and 6; the very fact that the property was registered in the year 1971, much after the Land Transfer Regulations came into force, was itself proof that the recital in the registered sale deed, of the property having been purchased in the year 1962, was false; and, as the order of the Special Deputy Collector, District Collector and the Government were reasoned orders, no interference was called for in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri K. Vinay Kumar, Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, would contend that possession of the land was re-delivered to respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 20.07.1999 under cover of panchanama; the petitioner did not even file a copy of the alleged agreement of sale written on plain white paper; they had not even mentioned the date on which the said agreement of sale was entered into and had merely mentioned the year; even the sale deed, registered in the year 1971, made no mention of the date on which the agreement of sale was entered into; Rule VI(1) of the Revised assignment policy prohibited alienation of assigned lands; reliance placed by the petitioner on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 08.11.1991 was misplaced as respondent Nos.5 and 6 were not put on notice; and the orders under challenge did not call for interference in Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is evident, from the order of the Special Deputy Collector dated 30.3.1994, that respondents 5 and 6 were pattedars of an extent of Ac.5.00 each which was the land assigned to them by the Government in the year 1958-59; and the petitioners’ aunt had purchased the said land by way of registered sale deed dated 20.12.1971 in contravention of Regulation 1 of 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970. The District Collector and Agent to the Government, in his proceedings dated 4.7.1999, observed that the purchaser’s name i.e., Smt. Kamula Sehamma was not found in the cultivator’s column for a single year; possession must be recorded at least for some years if the purchaser was in actual possession; a landless poor person could not purchase a huge extent of land i.e., Ac.10- 00 from anybody; she must, therefore, be a financially sound person; the petitioners’ name was recorded in the cultivator’s column of the Pahani from 1963-64 to 1966-67 and Sri Poleti Pullaiah’s name was recorded as cultivator from 1970-71 to 1972- 73; the names of the original Lawvoni pattedars (i.e., respondent Nos.5 and 6) continued without interruption till date; and from 1973-74 to 1977-78 and 1981-82 to 1985-86 the cultivator’s column was left blank. The Government, in its order in G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 31.10.2000, noted the aforesaid observations of the Special Deputy Collector and the Agent to the Government and held that there was no reason to interfere with the orders under revision. It is clear from the orders, impugned in these writ petitions, that the petitioners’ contention of their aunt having purchased the property in the year 1962 from respondents 5 and 6 was disbelieved and, since the sale transaction was registered on 20.12.1971 after the Land Transfer Regulations came into force, such transfer was held to illegal. As rightly pointed out by Sri K. Vinay Kumar, Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, while the petitioners contended that their aunt had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the year 1962, they did not even file a copy of the alleged agreement of sale supposedly written on plain paper. They did not also mention the date on which the agreement of sale was entered into and merely referred to the year. Even in the registered sale deed dated 20.12.1971 there is no mention of the date on which the agreement of sale was entered into. With regards the petitioners’ contention that, in proceedings under the Land Transfer Regulations, the respondents could not have invoked the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, it is necessary to note that, while recording a finding that transfer of the land, by way of registered sale deed dated 20.12.1971, was hit by the Land Transfer Regulations, the Special Deputy Collector, in his order dated 30.3.1994, had merely observed that, since the land was assigned land, the M.R.O. Dammapeta should take action against the petitioners herein under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. It is not in dispute that the lands, allegedly purchased by the petitioners’ aunt, are assigned lands. A direction to the M.R.O to take action under 1977 Act would not render the orders under challenge illegal. What is under challenge in this writ petition are the orders passed under the Land Transfer Regulations and, if the petitioners have any grievance with regards their eviction from the assigned lands under the 1977 Act on the ground that their aunt was a landless poor person, it is always open to them to avail such remedies as are available to them in law to challenge their eviction by the M.R.O. under the 1977 Act. While Section 7 of the Land Transfer Regulations makes the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulations or the Rules made thereunder, applicable to proceedings under the Land Transfer Regulations, the question as to whether the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.5 and 6 under the Land Transfer Regulations were hit by the provisions of the Limitation Act has been raised for the first time in this Writ proceedings and was not put in issue before any of the authorities below whose orders are under challenge herein. The relief sought for in this writ petition, in effect, is for a writ of Certiorari to quash the orders under challenge. In as much as this plea was not even taken before the authorities, whose orders are under challenge in this writ petition, I see no reason to entertain this contention, raised for the first time in this writ petition, and delve into factual disputes to determine whether or not the writ petition, as filed, is barred by limitation. The petitioners’ names being reflected in the cultivator’s column of the pahanis for some years only shows that they were cultivating the said land for some period. If, indeed, the petitioners’ aunt had purchased the property in the year 1962, her name would have been shown in the ‘pattedars’ column. As noted hereinabove the names of respondents 5 and 6 are said to have been shown as pattedars in the pahani right from the inception till date. Reliance placed by Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavli, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the report of the M.R.O. dated 8.11.1991 is also misplaced. In the said report the M.R.O, upon referring to the applications filed by the petitioners herein for mutation, notes their statement that they had cultivated the land along with their relatives and had entered their names in the cultivator’s column of the Pahani upto 1980-81; later they left the land fallow because of financial reasons; the village assistant had failed to enter their names, but had entered the names of the original pattedars even though the land was in their possession; they were paying land revenue; and a local enquiry be undertaken regarding actual possession of the land. In the said report the M.R.O. observes that he had conducted a local enquiry in the village and found that the petitioners’ aunt had purchased the land from respondents 5 and 6 in the year 1962; had got the same registered in the year 1972; the original pattedar had not cultivated the land and she cultivated the land with her nephews i.e., the petitioners; and that is why their names were found in the cultivators’ column. The report of the M.R.O. makes no mention as to who was examined during the course of enquiry or the basis for his coming to the conclusion that the petitioners’ aunt had purchased the property in the year 1962. It is necessary to note that the M.R.O. also refers to the year in which the property is said to have been purchased and not to any date on which the agreement of sale was entered into. There is nothing in the report of the M.R.O. which would justify this Court taking a view different from that of the authorities whose orders are under challenge in this writ petition. Even if the respondents 5 and 6 had invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in O.S. Nos.32 and 33 of 1991 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sathupalli, the said suits were dismissed for default on 10.5.1997. Dismissal of the Suit, that too not on merits, would have little bearing on the proceedings initiated under the Land Transfer Regulations. Under Regulation 3(1)(a) thereof, notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, rule or law in force in the agency tracts, any transfer of immoveable property situated in the agency tracts by a person, whether or not such person is a member of the scheduled tribe, shall be absolutely null and void. Under Regulation 3(2)(a) where transfer of immoveable property is made in contravention of sub-regulation (1) the Agent, the Agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed officer may, on application by any one interested, or on information given in writing by a public servant, or suo motu decree ejectment against any person in possession of the property claiming under the transfer, after due notice to him in the manner prescribed and may restore it to the transferor or his heirs. In view of the non-obstante clause in Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Land Transfer Regulations and, since Regulation 3(2)(a) confers power on the authorities to suo motu decree ejectment, the mere fact that respondents 5 and 6 had filed a suit earlier would not bar the jurisdiction of the official respondents to initiate proceedings under the Land Transfer Regulations to evict the petitioner from the land in question. Now the judgments relied upon by the petitioners: In Kalaara Vighneswararao1 this Court found that the petitioner’s father had purchased the land by way of an agreement of sale on 2.5.1969, and had registered the sale deed on 14.9.1975. On the ground that the agreement of sale was entered into before the Land Transfer Regulations came into force, this Court held that the transfer was not hit either by Regulation 1 of 1959 or by Regulation 1 of 1970. This Court also held that, at the relevant time, it was unnecessary for an agreement of sale, relating to immoveable property, to be registered as such a requirement was prescribed by Amendment Act 4 of 1999. In the case on hand, the authorities have examined the pahanis and other records, and have disbelieved the petitioners’ contention that their aunt had purchased the property by way of an agreement of sale in the year 1962. The very fact that the petitioners had neither produced a copy of the alleged agreement of sale nor did they mention the date on which the agreement of sale was entered into are factors which would cast serious doubts about the very existence of such an agreement of sale. In Ashok2, this Court held that Regulation 4 of the Land Transfer Regulations, which provides that a suit against a member of a scheduled tribe can be instituted only in the Court having jurisdiction over the agency tract, merely showed that, in respect of lands situated in an agency area and where parties were non- tribals, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment of a non-tribal trespasser. In the present proceedings we are not concerned with the question whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not. The question which arises for consideration is whether or not the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulations can also be invoked. As noted hereinabove Regulation 3(1)(a), read with Regulation 3(2)(a), confers power on the authorities to entertain, even suo motu, proceedings for ejectment under the Land Transfer Regulations. Both these judgments are, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioners. Viewed from any angle the writ petition, as filed, is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 25.02.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR/ASP [1] 2006(2) ALD 683 [2] 2002(6) ALT 296