THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 217 of 2005 Dated: 2.12.2010 Between: Sri Pochina Chalapathi Rao .... PETITIONER AND 1 Cheemala Narasimham and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 217 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an order made in C.M.A.No.112 of 2003, dated 27.11.2004 on the file of 4th respondent-Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, whereunder the appeal filed by 1st respondent herein was allowed reversing the order passed in LTR Case No.1/2003/PNK 41/2003 PNK dismissing the application filed by 1st respondent. Petitioner herein is a non-tribal and Respondent No.1 is a tribal. It appears that the application in LTR Case No.1/2003/PNK 41/2003/PNK was before the learned Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District under Section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. It was the case of the 1st respondent herein before the primary tribunal that he was the owner of the property and since the land is located in agency area, the same ought not to have been purchased by the father in law of the petitioner herein and as such, the same is liable to be restored to him. However, it was the case of the writ petitioner that simple sale deeds dated 5.3.1961 & 14.5.1961 executed by the 1st respondent’s mother in favour of the petitioner’s father-in-law and the revenue receipts for the years 1961-62 to 2002-2003 were filed before the primary tribunal and apart from that, certified copies of pahanies from 1961- 62, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1967-68, 1970-71, 1975-76, 2001-02 and 2002-03 were also filed and on examination of these documents, the primary tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein was in possession from 1960-61 to 2002-2003 and the land was purchased under simple sale deeds prior to the regulation came into force i.e., prior to 1.12.1963 and therefore, the petition is not maintainable, and accordingly, the primary tribunal dropped the proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, 1st respondent tribal filed an appeal before 4th respondent-Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Badrachalam in C.M.A.No.112/03. The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal holding as under: “The question before this court whether the alleged sale deeds have got any value in the eye of law. The respondent filed only the Photostat copy of the said sale agreement said to have been executed by appellant’s mother. The 1962-63 Phani for the scheduled land shows the name of Cheemala Narasaiah as pattadar. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka issued pattadar pass book, to the tribal appellant for the scheduled land. If the non-tribal respondent really purchased the scheduled land in the year 1961, he would have applied for the pattadar pass book and got it in his name. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka issued the pattadar pass book to tribal petitioner who is the appellant herein. The pattadar pass book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka clearly shows that the scheduled land belongs to tribal appellant only. The non-tribal respondent has no valid title against the pattadar pass book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka in favour of appellant. The presumption is that entire land in scheduled area belongs to tribal unless the contrary is proved. The patta stands in the name of Cheemala Narasimha till this day. The document filed by the respondent clearly shows that the name of Cheemala Narasimha as pattadar for the appeal land. In this case the lower Court failed to appreciate the evidence, produced by the appellant. As such it is pronounced beyond doubt that the transfer of immovable property belonging to the scheduled tribal (appellant herein) was made to the non-tribal, in contravention of the sub-section 1 of the Section 3 of 1/59 as amended by 1/70, which is null and void.” Inspite of service of notice, none appears for the 1st respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that once there is a sale deed, may be a simple sale deed, which is made prior to 1.12.1963, very jurisdiction of the primary tribunal gets ousted and that this aspect was rightly considered by the primary tribunal and dropped the proceedings whereas the appellate tribunal has taken into consideration the matters, which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the appellate tribunal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the impugned orders and other material available on record. There is no dispute as to the execution of the simple sale deeds produced by the petitioner dated 5.3.1961 and 14.5.1961. The sole claim of the tribal was that petitioner is a non-tribal and therefore, the very transaction and possession of the land within the agency area by a non-tribal i.e., the petitioner was illegal and contrary to Regulation No.1/1959 (Telanga Area), which came into force with effect from 1.12.1963. The appellate tribunal reversed the findings of the primary tribunal simply on the ground that the name of the tribal reflected as a pattadar and therefore, if really, non-tribal purchased the schedule land in the year 1961 he would have applied for pattadar pass books and got his name mutated. Merely because pattadar pass books were not applied, it does not mean that he has no title to the land particularly when the transaction is prior to 1.12.1963. Even though it is an unregistered sale deed, once the transfer is reflected therein categorically, the question of rejecting such documents does not arise. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly relied upon the judgment reported in Kola Mahalaxmi and another Vs. Agent to Government, Khammam and others[1] wherein it is stated that, “even if transfers were made under unregistered sale deeds, authorities under the Regulation have no power to go into validity of such transfers. That is a matter for consideration by competent Court in appropriate proceedings. The authorities under the Regulation cannot decide transfer made prior to coming into force of the Regulation.” In the teeth of the simple sale deeds made prior to 1.12.1963, the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner before the tribunal would categorically indicate that the father-in-law of the petitioner had not only purchased the land in question prior to 1.12.1963, when the transfer was effected, but he had also been in continuous possession from 1960-61 till date. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the approach made by the appellate tribunal in reversing the findings recorded by the primary tribunal is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate tribunal is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the order passed by the primary tribunal is upheld. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated:2.12.2010 Note: CC in one week B/O Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO :217 of 2005 Dated: 2.12.2010 [1] 1999(6) ALT 174