THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.8701 of 2002 ORDER: In this Writ Petition the petitioner questions the auction notice issued in Cr.No.2787/C/EX/89/B5 dated 20-12-2001 by the third respondent and the auction conducted on 28-01-2002 for sale of the petitioner’s house bearing old No.8-4, New No.13-8, situate at Palvancha Municipality, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner herein was the sole licencee for arrack shop No.28 of Kothagudem and he was also licencee for shop No.2 of Manugur along with one Mr.Md.Asmathullah for the excise year 1988-89. The petitioner defaulted in paying the privilege fee and issue price of arrack for arrack shop No.2 of Manuguru and to realize the amount defaulted, steps have been taken by the respondent authorities. 3. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S. No.1/91, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, in which he sought declaration to the effect that he never participated in the auction of arrack shop and the said suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending in A.S. No. 1512 of 1997 and in the said appeal, there was interim order passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.4089 of 1998 to sell the immovable property of the defaulter i.e., the petitioner by conducting an open auction. 4. Though the property was put to auction number of times, for one reason or the other, the auction was not confirmed. Ultimately, auction notice dated 20-12-2001 was issued, which was published in gazette No.81, and auction was confirmed on 28-01-2002. In the said auction, the fourth respondent was the highest bidder, who purchased the house for 5.45 lakhs, as against the estimated value of Rs.5.15 lakhs as per the Executive Engineer, R & B Special Division, Kothagudem. 5. In this Writ Petition it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there was a direction by this Court for sale of property by public auction, the third respondent authority had imposed restriction that the property should be sold among the tribals only and accordingly the property was sold to the tribe for a lesser price than the market value. 6. On the other hand, a counter-affidavit is filed by the Sub Divisional Prohibition & Excise Officer, Bhadrachalam Division, Khammam District, in which it is stated that the house in question is situated in Sy.No.727 of the Samasthan Palvoncha, which is in scheduled area. It is also stated that earlier occasion when auction was conducted, it was knocked down in favour of one Sri V.Sambasiva Rao for an amount of Rs.5.82 lakhs, but the same was not confirmed by the District Collector, as the same is situated in a scheduled area and directed to conduct auction among the tribals only. 7. Though it is stated in the counter-affidavit that house in question is situated in Sy.No.727 of the Samasthan Palvoncha, the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. 9. The only grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the property was sold by putting the restriction that it has to be sold only to the tribals. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the said condition, the price which was fetched in the auction was only Rs.5.45 laksh, though the market value is much higher than that. 10. In view of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1/59, there is a prohibition for transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals in the said notified areas. As much as the property is situated in the scheduled area, if the same is sold to any non- tribal, it will be in contravention of the provisions of the Regulations referred to above. Further, it is also stated in the counter that in earlier occasion when the property was sold without putting any restriction, the District Collector, who is Agent to Government, as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1/59, disapproved the sale and not confirmed the same and directed for re- auction by limiting the sale only to the tribals. Though this Court has permitted for sale by public auction, that does not mean that such sale should be conducted in contravention to the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 1/59, as amended by Regulation, 2/70. Further, even with regard to price also it is to be noticed that it has fetched Rs.5.45 lakhs, though the estimated value is only Rs.5.15 lakhs. Even from that angle, it cannot be said that the property is fetched less than the estimated market value. As no other argument is advanced, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 30th March, 2009 skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8701 of 2002 Between: Puli Rama Swamy, S/o.Late Narasingam, Hindu, R/o.Ramavaram, Kothagudem, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Khammam District. 2 The Excise Superintendant, Khammam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha. 4 Gogulottu Seetharam, S/o.Beemla, Hindu, R/o.Anjanapuram, Burgampad, Palvancha, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or Direction or any other Order declaring the impugned Auction notice vice Cr.No.2787/C/EX/89/B5, dt:20.12.2002 issued by the 3rd Respondent and the auction conducted by the 3rd Respondent on 28.1.2002 relating to the sale of the petitioner's house bearing old No.8- 4, New No.13-8, in an area of 630.27 Sq. Feets Equal to 126-89 Sq.Yards situated at palvancha, Palvancha Municipality, Khammam District being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and contrary to the specific direction of this Hon'ble Court dt:24.3.98 in C.M.P.No.4059/98 in A.S.No.1512/97 and the consequential confirmation of sale if any made be declared as void, illegal un-enforceable apart from untenable and unsustainable in law. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.SRINIVAS EMANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following :