IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.255 OF 2006 Between: Gottumukkala Narasimha Raju and others .....APPELLANTS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.255 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal Suit, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.08.2005, in Original Suit No.13 of 1997, on the file of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, whereunder and whereby, the suit filed for declaration that the order passed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 in R.C.No.279/87, dated 16.07.1996, for eviction of the appellants/plaintiffs from the plaint schedule lands as null, void, unenforceable and not binding and to set aside the same, and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from dispossessing the appellants from the plaint schedule lands or from interfering with the appellants peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, was dismissed. 2. Appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The plaintiffs though not tribals are residents of notified agency tract since the time of their forefathers. The plaint schedule lands are in agency area. The plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same since 1947 by paying taxes. The schedule lands do not belong to tribals. They are Government lands. On the applications of the plaintiffs, revenue authorities granted D-Form pattas to the plaintiffs in respect of the lands in their possession in the year 1983-84. When D-Form pattas were sought to be cancelled by the revenue authorities, W.P.No.1232 of 1988 was filed before this Court and stay order was obtained on 01.02.1988 in W.P.MP.No.1533 of 1988. Taking advantage of disposal of the said petition, when the defendants started interfering with the plaintiffs possession, they filed W.P.No.520 of 1995, which was disposed of on 21.07.1995 directing the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule lands except in accordance with law. Defendant No.2 issued notice, dated 16.07.1996, in R.C.No.279/87 for S.No.39/5 etc., and also issued another letter in R.C.No.279/87, dated 08.08.1996, to defendant No.3. Aggrieved by the said notices of defendant No.2 directing defendant No.3 to evict the plaintiffs from the schedule property, the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.20075 of 1996 before this Court and it was dismissed on 25.03.1997 with observations. Defendant No.3 collected taxes for the plaint schedule lands even on 08.04.1996. Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959 as amended by Regulation 1/1970 are only prospective in application and are not applicable to transactions effected earlier to them. Since defendants are threatening with dispossession, notice under Section 80 C.P.C. cannot be given and it is sought to be dispensed with. 4. Defendant No.2 filed written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.3 and 4 with the following allegations: The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to canvass about legality, validity and binding nature of notice, dated 16.07.1996, of defendant No.2, in view of finings and conclusions given by this Court in the order dated 25.03.1997 in W.P.No.20075 of 1996. The plaint schedule lands are situated in agency area. All the plaintiffs are non-tribals. Some of the plaintiffs are non-residents of Ramuladevapuram Village. D-Form pattas were granted to non-tribals including the plaintiffs in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.41, Revenue (b) Department, dated 13.01.1971, and the benefits provided in G.O.Ms.No.129, S.W. Department, dated 13.08.1979 and Land Transfer Regulations. Therefore, after noticing the same, possession of the plaint schedule lands was taken to cancel D-Form pattas granted to non-tribals. W.P.No.1232 of 1988, questioning cancellation of D-Form pattas, was disposed of on 29.09.1988 by this Court against the plaintiffs. Again the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.520 of 1995 and the same was disposed of on 21.07.1995 directing the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule lands except in accordance with law, if the plaintiffs were in possession of the same. When the Revenue Officials started initiating action to take possession of the plaint schedule lands after complying with all the formalities, the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.20075 of 1996. After cancellation of D-Form pattas, all the plaintiffs were evicted from the lands in question and those lands were assigned to eligible tribal beneficiaries and the land continues to be in possession of the tribal assignee beneficiaries. The plaintiffs who are non-tribals have no right to obtain assignment. They are not poor people. Their case cannot be considered for grant of land as per G.O.Ms.No.129. After cancellation of D-Form pattas on 07.01.1989, the Mandal Revenue Officer granted pattas to 29 poor tribals on 30.06.1994. Taking advantage of the order in W.P.No.520 of 1995, the plaintiffs reentered into the plaint schedule lands though they were virtually dispossessed from the plaint schedule lands by the authorities in the year 1994. The cause of action in the above three Writ Petitions as well as in this suit is same. The allegations that the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in possession of the lands since 1947 is a blatant lie. Payment of land revenue will not create any right to the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule lands since the V.A.O. has stated that he collected the tax under mistaken notion of the Court order. 5. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder contending that the trial Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that agency Courts are presided over by Revenue Officers. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration of the eviction orders in R.C.279/87 dated 16.07.1996 passed by the 2nd defendant is null and void? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 3. Whether the order dated 25.03.1997 in W.P.No.20075 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disentitle the plaintiffs to claim the reliefs in the suit? 4. To what relief?” 7. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 was got marked. 8. The trial Court, after coming to the conclusion that the suit before the civil Court is wholly not maintainable and that the remedy, if any, of the plaintiffs is to file a suit before the Agent under the Agency Laws, considered the case on merits and dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. 10. On the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction, the trial Court observed that the suit before civil Court is wholly not maintainable and the remedy, if any, of the appellants/plaintiffs is to file a suit before the Agent to the Government. Having observed the same, the trial Court ought not have given any findings on the merits of the case. The jurisdictional forum has to give findings on merits of the case. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court with regard to the merits of the case are liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed setting aside the findings of the trial Court with regard to the merits of the case. The appellants/plaintiffs are at liberty to avail their remedies before the Agent to the Government. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 28, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.255 OF 2006 March 28, 2011