IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2962 of 2001 Between: Ooka Surya Chandram and another. … Petitioners And The Special Deputy Collector (T.W), K.R.Puram, West Godavari District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.S.Murthy. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not permitting petitioner No.2, a registered Voluntary Organisation, to appear in proceedings before respondent No.1, as illegal and unconstitutional and, consequently, set aside order dated 10-1-2001 passed by respondent No.2. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that Petitioner No.2 has been making applications before the Settlement Officer for deciding the issue of pattas under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short “Regulation 1/59”) as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970; that when petitioner No.2 was not permitted to come on record in certain cases, it filed Writ Petition No.23366 of 1996 challenging the action of the authorities in not permitting it to represent the cause of the tribals; that the said Writ Petition was disposed of by declaring that petitioner No.2 is entitled to represent the cause of the tribals wherever and whenever it is necessary to safeguard the interests of the tribals; and that Writ Appeal No.1011 of 1997 filed against the said judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners felt aggrieved by proceedings dated 10-1-2001, whereby respondent No.2 clarified that Sri M.V.Ramana, Advocate, Rajahmundry of petitioner No.2- Organisation may be permitted to allow and represent the tribals only in the court of Settlement Officer, Kovvur. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 it is stated that under 3(2)(a) of the Regulation 1/59, the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed officer are vested with powers to decree ejectment against any person in possession of immovable property in contravention of Regulation 3(1). Under Regulation 3(a) appeals are provided against the decree of ejectment. Under Rule 7 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Rules, 1969 (for short “the Rules”), the competent authority is empowered to issue notices to the concerned parties; under Rule 9 the authorities have power to compel the attendance of the persons or production of documents; and, therefore, these authorities exercise quasi judicial functions. It is further stated that under Rule 11 of the Rules, no party shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner before any officer or authority in any proceedings under the said Rules without the previous permission in writing of the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officer. It is further stated that the petitioners, who are not the legal practitioners, cannot be permitted to appear in the proceedings; and that under Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1969 except as otherwise provided in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any court or before any authority unless he is enrolled as an Advocate under this Act. As regards the judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No.23366 of 1996 and Writ Appeal No.1011 of 1997 it is averred that the said judgments do not pertain to Regulation 1/59. I have carefully perused the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.23366 of 1996. In the said Order this Court took note of the fact that petitioner-Organization (petitioner No.2 herein), which was registered in the year 1985 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was not permitted by the Settlement Officer to appear on behalf of the tribals in assisting them to claim pattas before him on the ground that the provisions contemplated under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation 1970 (for short “Regulation 2/70”) does not permit the petitioner- Organization to be a party in the proceedings as it has no direct interest. Having referred to the provisions of the said Regulation, this Court interpreted the word “person interested” mentioned in Section 9 as any person who claims title or possession to the land in question but also others who represent the genuine cause of the tribals, who are inhabitants of the area in which assessed waste lands are sought to be distributed. On this premise, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner-Organization is entitled to represent the cause of the tribals. In the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 she clarified that under the said order of this Court Sri M.V.Ramana, Advocate, Rajahmundry of Sakti Voluntary Organisation may be permitted to represent tribals only in the Court of Settlement Officer, Kovvur. In my considered view, the situation differs from one enactment to the other. When the petitioner sought to appear in a proceeding arising under Regulation 1/59, they were not permitted to represent the tribals on the ground that the above mentioned judgment of this Court is confined to the proceedings before the Settlement Officer, which necessarily implies that the proceedings arising under Regulation 2/70. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the spirit behind the judgment of this Court arising under Regulation 2/70 shall be taken for the purpose of permitting the petitioners to represent the tribals even in cases arising under Regulation 1/59. In my considered view, such a course is not permissible having regard to the fact that the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition 23366 of 1996 turns on the provisions contained in Regulation 2/70, in particular Section 9. There is no specific provision under Regulation 1/59, under which third parties, like the petitioners, can straight away be permitted to represent the tribals in proceedings arising under the said Regulations. As pleaded by the respondents, Rule 11 bars a legal practitioner to appear for any party without the specific permission of the Agent. If the petitioners seek to espouse the cause of the tribals, they can do so by filing appropriate applications in individual cases and it shall then be open to the competent authority - exercising the powers under the Regulations before whom the proceedings are pending and applications are filed - to decide on merits of each application. Similarly, if a legal practitioner seeks to appear before the authorities, the procedure envisaged under Rule 11 is required to be followed. As regards the impugned order, it is not in dispute that the case in the context of which the same was passed was already disposed of and petitioner No.2 was permitted to represent the tribals. Therefore, there is no need to adjudicate on the legality or otherwise of the said order. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ---------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:12-08-2008 MNR