IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.307 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/11/2008 in WP No.9314 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Podem Krishna S/o. Papa Rao R/o. Tallamada Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Damera Venkata Narsimha Appa Rao S/o. Surya Rao R/o. Patwarigudem, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Agent to Government (District Collector) Khammam, Khammam District. 4 The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Palwancha, Khammam District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for respondent No.1: MR. KAKARA VENKAT RAO Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5:GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ ble Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Twenty-three years down the line, the appellant, who claims to be the illitam son-in-law of one Turram Surappa, whose complaint ended in dismissal as far back as 29.11.1975, approached respondent No.3 with a purported appeal against the said order, dated 29.11.1975. Respondent No.3 readily entertains the appeal, condones the huge delay and resumes the land, which was admittedly purchased by respondent No.1 from the father-in-law of the appellant way back in the year 1961. Respondent No.1 having been unsuccessful in his revision filed before respondent No.2, filed Writ Petition No.9314 of 2007 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Assailing the said order, respondent No.5 in the writ petition filed the present appeal. At the hearing, Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the premise on which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition was incorrect inasmuch as the learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant has filed a fresh complaint regarding holding of the property in dispute by respondent No.1. The learned counsel says that the appellant has in fact filed an appeal and not a complaint. Even assuming that the writ petition was disposed of on an incorrect premise, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 purchased the property in dispute through a white paper transaction on 10.12.1961 from Sri Turram Surappa, a Scheduled Tribe, who admittedly, was the owner of the property. On recording the statement of the said Surappa that he sold the property to respondent No.1, the Special Deputy Collector, who initiated suo motu proceedings for resumption of land, dropped further proceedings by passing an order on 29.11.1975. A few years later, another person, by name, Turram Rajulu approached the Special Deputy Collector, Paloncha and filed a complaint regarding violation of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970 (for short ‘the Regulation’). The said complaint having been enquired into was dismissed on 24.03.1982. One more attempt was made by another person, by name, Turram Muthyalu by filing yet another complaint in 1994. The said complaint also ended in its dismissal after due enquiry, on 16.01.1995. After successive dismissals of these complaints, the appellant surfaced in the scene for the first time and purported to have filed an appeal before respondent No.3 against order, dated 29.11.1975. Though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon us that under the provisions of the Regulation, the doctrines of res judicata and laches have no application, we are of the view that there cannot be such an absolute proposition. The authorities having successively held that the transaction between Turram Surappa and respondent No.1 was a genuine one and did not violate the provisions of the Regulation, it will be nothing but an abuse of process of law, if an appeal was entertained and allowed by the appellate authority after more than two decades ignoring the fact that the original owner who sold the property himself has given a statement before the primary authority that he sold the property. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that the sale through a white paper, was subsequently regularized by the competent authority and respondent No.1 was given pattadar passbook. Having carefully considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with. The writ appeal is accordingly, dismissed. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J 13th MARCH, 2009. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J kvni