IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14478 of 2001 Between: Dasi Vijaya Ratnam S/o Kumar Rao Pragadapalli Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Agent of Government, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare) K.R.Puram, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Radhakrishna Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order dated 13-04-1993 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 11-12- 2000 passed by respondent No. 1 confirming the order of respondent No.2. Heard Sri P. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents. The petitioner claims that his family had been in possession of Ac.1.01 cent of land in Survey No. 392/11 of Pragadapalli Village of Polavaram Mandal, which was stated to be part of erstwhile estate village. The case of the petitioner is that the then Zamindar recognized the petitioner’s father’s occupation and granted a patta (Mucheleka) in the year 1909 in his favour and that since then, the land had been in occupation of his father till his death and thereafter the petitioner continues to be in enjoyment of the same. Respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 01-10-1990 under Section 7 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Area) Land Transfer Regulations, 1950 (for short, the Regulations’) for the ejection of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed order dated 13-04-1993 ordering for the petitioner’s eviction. The petitioner filed appeal in SRA No.2 of 1993 before respondent No. 1 which also ended in dismissal vide order dated 11-12-2000. These two orders are questioned in this writ petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner’s family had been in possession of the property in question for almost a century under a Mucheleka granted in favour of the petitioner’s father by the then Zamindar, the respondents are not justified in ordering for the petitioner’s eviction. He further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of patta under Regulation 2 of 1970 is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer, Kovvur after the petitioner’s appeal filed before the Commissioner of Appeals, the Office of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration of Andhra Pradesh was allowed and the matter was remanded by the Commissioner vide order dated 21-07-2000 and that pending disposal of the petitioner’s claim, it is neither legal nor proper for the respondents to evict the petitioner from the subject land. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare opposed these contentions and submitted that the land is situated in an agency area and without there being any document of title, the petitioner who is admittedly a non-tribal cannot be permitted to be in possession of the property. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused order dated 21-07-2000 passed by the Commissioner, Appeals in the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 (3) of Regulation 2 of 1970 against order dated 29-08-1997 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer- cum-Settlement Officer rejecting the petitioner’s claim for grant of patta. The Commissioner in his order observed that the petitioner produced certain documents for the first time in the appeal and that he belongs to harijan caste which is treated as hill tribe under the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulations. Having regard to these facts, the Commissioner, Appeals set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and remanded the case to him to examine the documents filed by the petitioner and with reference to pre and post abolition record and dispose of the claim of the petitioner for grant of patta. The fact that the petitioner’s family had been in possession of the property for a substantially long time is not disputed. The further fact is that the petitioner’s claim for grant of patta is still pending before the Settlement Officer, Kovvur. In this admitted factual matrix of the case, I am of the view that there can be no justification for the respondents to evict the petitioner from the land in question at least till such time as the Settlement Officer decides the claim of the petitioner for grant of patta. In this view of the matter, both the orders of the respondents are set aside. Though the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer, Kovvur West Godavari District is not a party, having regard to the facts of the case, it is appropriate that he shall dispose of the claim of the petitioner pending before him for grant of patta within a period of three months. The petitioner shall cooperate with Settlement Officer in the disposal of his claim. If the Settlement Officer does not dispose of the claim within the above stipulated time, the petitioner is given liberty to avail his remedy for expeditious disposal. For a period of six months from today, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner. On the expiry of the six months time, the respondents shall be free to initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction of the petitioner subject to the result of his application for grant of patta pending before the Settlement Officer, Kovvur. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03-03-2009 ks