IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24061 of 2004 Between: Katari Raghavaiah, S/o Narapa Naidu, R/o Bogulu ( Village & Mandal), Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthy Mandal, Nellore District. 4 The Station House Officer, Dagadarthy Police Station, Dagadarthy Village & Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in filing complaint under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and Section 3(i)(iii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the 1977 Act and the 1989 Act’ respectively) without following due procedure under the 1977 Act as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Smt. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner claimed to have purchased an extent of Acs.15.10 cents of agriculture land in Survey No.206/2 of Bogulu Village from one Thomata Padmavathi under registered sale deed, dated 18.02.1999. According to the petitioner, his vendor purchased the said property under registered sale deed, dated 11.08.1986 from one T.Venkata Subbaiah. In this writ petition, the petitioner assailed the complaint, which was taken on file as F.I.R.No.113 of 2004, dated 13.12.2004 under Section 7 of the 1977 Act and 3(1)(iv)(v) of the 1989 Act. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the First Information Report does not disclose commission of any offence under the provisions of the 1989 Act and hence, the criminal complaint to the extent of the said provisions cannot be sustained. She further submitted that to invoke the provisions of Section 7 of the 1977 Act and initiate prosecution, it is incumbent upon the respondents to issue notice and determine the question whether the petitioner purchased the alleged assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of the 1977 Act. The learned counsel contends that unless the respondents passed an order after following due procedure under Section 3 of the 1977 Act cancelling the assignments and invalidating the transfers, no prosecution lies under Section 7 of the 1977 Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) per contra submitted that since the lands assigned to as many as 12 persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste are in possession of the petitioner, who is alleged to have grabbed the said lands from the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste, the prosecution under the provisions of the 1989 Act is launched. He further submitted that in order to initiate prosecution under Section 7 of the 1977 Act, it is not necessary to initiate proceedings under Section 3 of the 1977 Act in the first instance and conclude the said proceedings. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the First Information Report shows that Smt. G.Anjamma, Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi sent a complaint to the Station House Officer, wherein it is mentioned that certain extents of lands comprised in Survey No.206/1-1 etc., were assigned to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste; that on verification, it was found that the said lands were acquired by the petitioner through a transaction in contravention of the provisions of the 1977 Act and that the lands were resumed. On this premise, the complaint was filed for the alleged offences under Section 3(1)(iv)(v) of the 1989 Act. The said provision reads as under: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities:- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, - (iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred; (v ) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water.” Having carefully considered the above-reproduced provision, I am of the view that the allegations contained in the complaint taken on their face value do not satisfy the ingredients of any of the above extracted provisions. Ex facie, there is no allegation that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 3(1)(iv) and (v) of the 1989 Act. With respect to registration of complaint under these provisions, I am of the considered view that even if the transfer is hit by the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977, in the context of enforcing the provisions of Section 3 of the 1989 Act, the said act does not constitute wrongful dispossession of a member of Scheduled Caste or Tribe from his land or premises or interfering with the enjoyment of his rights. If it is found that the transaction between the petitioner and the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste, is in violation of the provisions of the 1977 Act, the assignees would be entitled to restoration of possession. In my considered view, a patently illegal transaction, under which, possession was acquired by the purchaser, is different from wrongful dispossession of the assignees. While in the former case, the purchaser acquires possession with the consent of the assignee, albeit illegally, in the latter case, the very dispossession itself is wrongful and against the wishes of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the complaint, it is not stated that any of the assignees gave a complaint to the Mandal Revenue Officer that they were wrongfully dispossessed by the petitioner. In the absence of such an allegation, the ingredients of the said provision are not satisfied to prosecute the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the complaint to the extent of registering a case under the provisions of 3 (1)(iv) and (v) of the 1989 Act cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. With respect to the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District that an extent of Acs.11.80 cents was purchased by the petitioner from 12 beneficiaries of the Cooperative Joint Farming Society of Katrayapadu Village and that the same is evident from Adangal prepared by the Panchayat Secretary for Fasli 1412 and the statement given by the original allottees/their legal heirs on 07.11.2004. It is further stated that on finding that the transfer in favour of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the 1977 Act, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under the provisions of the said Act and passed order restoring the land to the original assignees/lessees/legal heirs and possession was handed over to them. Since the transfer in favour of the petitioner constitutes violation of the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act, complaint was filed and it was registered under the said provision apart from the provisions of the 1989 Act. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless an order is passed under Section 3 of the 1977 Act after following due procedure, the respondents cannot initiate prosecution under Section 7 of the 1977 Act, I do not find myself in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel. Sections 3 and 7 of the 1977 Act operate in different fields. While the former provision deals with civil consequences, namely, invalidation of transfer made in contravention of the provisions of the Act and restoration of the land in favour of the original assignees, Section 7 of the 1977 Act entails the purchaser for penal consequences. The question whether the assigned land is acquired in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the 1977 Act or not can independently be gone into by the jurisdictional Criminal Court under Section 7 of the 1977 Act and it is not necessary for the respondents to await conclusion of proceedings under Section 3 of the 1977 Act to launch prosecution. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the respondents initiating proceedings under Section 7 of the 1977 Act, even assuming that no order has been passed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the 1977 Act, though a specific averment is made in the counter-affidavit that as a fact, such an order has been passed and lands are resumed. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. F.I.R.No.113 of 2004, dated 13.12.2004 is quashed to the extent of Section 3(1)(iv) and (v) of the 1989 Act. The complaint as regards the provisions of Section 7 of the 1977 Act shall stand valid. The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the said complaint to the said extent. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th June, 2008. kvni