THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14215 of 2002 Date of Order:10.02.2011 Between: Gangi Reddy Kouleshwar Reddy ..Petitioner and The Mandal Revenue officer and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14215 of 2002 ORDER :- Petitioner claiming to be the absolute owner and possessor of Acs.5-17 guntas covered by Survey Nos.81/A, AA, E of Pandurangapuram Village, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District filed this writ petition stating that his possession has been recorded in the pahanies from 1969-70, but the respondents are not issuing pattadar passbook and title deeds to him under the provisions of A.P. Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971; that at the instance of third parties, the revenue officials are trying to evict the petitioner from the said land; and hence, a Mandamus should be issued to the respondents and his sub-ordinates not to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule land. In the entire pleading, the petitioner has not stated as to how he became the owner of the property or from whom he has purchased and whether his vendor is a tribe or a non-tribe, since the land falls under schedule area. Further, this Court directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner pending further orders. Meanwhile Smt.Boda Tara, respondent No.2 filed WP.MP.No.23908 of 2008 seeking impleadment into the writ petition stating that her grandfather late Banoth Megya, who was the owner and possessor of the land, had two sons Banoth Ramji and Banoth Sakru. The petitioner’s grandfather and late Banoth Megya acquired the above land and at no point of time alienated to any person including the so called petitioner. The petitioner taking advantage of the illiteracy of her grand parents, obtained the signature on plain papers without any knowledge of her grand father and all the revenue records goes to show that her father namely Sakru and his uncle are the inherent successor of her late father. Since the land is situated in the agency area, the prohibition under the Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959 applies to all transfers and any such transfer, if made, in favour of the petitioner, is null and void. The petitioner came to know the proceedings in the eviction order in case No.121/84/AGN on the file of Sub-Collector, Paloncha, dated 30.04.1986. Petitioner approached the court suppressing all material facts and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Sri P.Rambabu, Tahsildar, Paloncha, Khammam District, filed a counter affidavit sworn on 18.03.2010 stating that Pandurangapuram village comes under schedule area and the petitioner is a non-tribe and the petitioner name is recorded in occupant column. The non- tribals are not eligible for land transaction after commencement of the Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. In those circumstances, the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Paloncha presently at Bhadrachalam has initiated case No.121/84/PVC and passed Ejectment Orders against the petitioner. Being a non-tribal he is not eligible for issuing a pattadar pass books in the schedule area. Even if the petitioner is in possession of the schedule land, the same is against law. The revenue officials have visited the schedule land to verify and implement the Special Deputy Collector (TW) Orders. Presently, the land is not being cultivated by the petitioner and the land is covered by house sites. The petitioner is non-tribal and threatened the Revenue Officials with dire consequences, if they enter the land. The least which is expected from the Tahsildar by the Court is the date of the ejectment orders passed, issuance of any notice and against whom the notice was issued etc. Sri P.Rambabu, Tahsildar, Paloncha, in a casual and mechanical manner filed the above affidavit without furnishing any such particulars. Hence, this Court could not decide the case on merits for lack of particulars. This court by order, dated 03.02.2011, directed the Tahsildar to be present in the court along with the relevant records in case No.121/84/KGM, dated 30.04.1986. Pursuant to the said direction, the Tahsildar was present and produced the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the case No.121/84/KGM was issued against Gangi Reddi Pullamma of Pandurangapuram village, but not against the petitioner. The record produced by the Tahsildar also discloses that the case was registered at the instance of Banoth Ramjee, 2nd respondent’s father’s elder brother against Gangi Reddi Pullamma. The order also shows that notice in Form-E under Rule 7(2) of the said regulation was got served as per rules on the respondent therein on ________. He was pointed out that the immovable property was shown under him and was directed to show case as to why he should not be ejected from the suit lands and he failed to submit the counter within the stipulated period. In spite of the notice, none present and the records produced show that the name of the petitioner therein viz., Banoth Ramjee’s name was recorded as Pattadar in Column No.11 of the pahani from 1962-63 to 1970-71. The name of the respondent therein viz., Gangi Reddi Pullamma is recorded as Cultivator only during the year 1982-83. This is a clear evidence that the respondent therein came into possession of tribal land in the agency area after commencement of Regulation 1/59 as amended by regulation 1/70. Hence, ejectment order was issued. The ejectment order, dated 30.04.1986, in Form-F also discloses that the order is against Gangi Reddi Pullamma. On the ejectment order passed, one Banoth Krishna Naik, S/o. Ramoji Naik, made a representation on 10.03.2010 stating that his father Ramoji Naik is the owner of Acs.5-17 guntas of Pandurangapuram village covered by Survey Nos.81 and 88. The same was occupied by Gangi Reddi Narapu Reddy in the name of her wife, who belongs to non-tribal group. Whether Gangi Reddi Pullamma is the mother of the writ petitioner or not is also not borne out from the record. The Tahsildar is under obligation to verify the records and give particulars for effectively adjudicating the lis between the parties. The Tahsildar, who is drawing the salary from the public exchequer, is answerable not only to the public, but he is supposed to assist the Court by giving true facts. In the process, it appears that he has colluded with the petitioner by suppressing the record enabling him to obtain favourable orders. When the same is pointed out to the Tahsildar, who is present in person before this Court, he has no answer to say. The recklessness in which the Tahsildar files the counter affidavit showing disrespect to the court is deplorable and this court records its displeasure for the carelessness shown by the Tahsildar in filing the counter in defence of the Government. Having regard to the fact that the ejectment order is not passed against the writ petitioner; he has admitted that he is in possession of the property only from 1969 onwards after regulation 1/59 is enforced; how he came into possession of the property; whether the purchase of the said land was by a registered sale deed or unregistered sale deed and issuance of pattadar passbooks basing upon the unregistered sale deeds, is a matter which requires to be decided by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Agency. Since the entire powers are now being delegated to the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Badrachalam, he shall initiate prompt action for restoration of the possession of the property to the Tribal, if the transfer is in violation of the regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70, against the persons who are in possession i.e., Gangi Reddi Pullamma or the petitioner or any third party, who claims to be in possession of the property and pass appropriate orders, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner and person effected and shall complete the enquiry within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such orders are passed, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property. Until appropriate orders are passed by the Project Officer, the wit petitioner is restrained from disposing of the said property or creating any third party rights and changing the very nature of the land. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J February 10, 2011 Lmv