IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19725 of 2007 Between: Tatipalli Rajeshwar S/o.Bhagwantham, R/o.Asifabad village and Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. District Collector, Adilabad District. 2. Special Deputy Collector (TW) Adilabad Hqs at Utnoor, Adilabad District. 3. Tahsildar, Asifabad Mandal, Asifabad. .....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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the ejectment decree and order in Case No. TW A1/42/2005 dt. 10.9.2007 on the file of the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and violtive of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently stay all further proceedings including eviction of the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.025 cents in survey No.6/part situate in Asifabad Village and Mandal, Adilabad District pursuant to the said order and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.19725 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the orders passed on 10-09-2007 by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Adilabad District, holding that the transfer of land in favour of the writ petitioner is made in contravention of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1969 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Regulation’), as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. It is the case of the petitioner that the transfer in his favour took place on 20-08-1969 and he has also constructed a house after obtaining permission from the local Gram Panchayat and that the said house has also been assigned Door Nos.6-46/2 and 6-46/3. It is also asserted that he is paying tax to the local Gram Panchayat. He further asserted that he was in possession as at the time orders of Ejectment have been passed by the Special Deputy Collector through his Proceedings dated 10-09-2007, which have been served on him only on 16-09-2007. Entertaining the above said writ petition, this Court by an order passed on 17-09-2007 directed stay of all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0-25 cents in Survey No.6/part situate in Asifabad Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that because of a threat of dispossession looming large, he moved the present writ petition though an appeal against the orders of the Special Deputy Collector passed under Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Regulations, would lie to the Agent to the Government in terms of Subsection (3) of Section 3. He has also pointed out that, in fact, he has preferred an appeal on 27-09- 2007. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, Panchanama, said to have been conducted by the Tahsildar, Asifabad on 17-09-2007, has been enclosed pointing out that the property in question has been taken possession of by the Revenue Establishment on 17-09- 2007. When an order passed by the Special Deputy Collector is appealable before the Agent to the Government and within the time specified thereunder for doing so, the action of dispossessing the petitioner on the very next day of communicating the said order, who was said to be in possession of the property in question from 20-08-1969, does not appear to be reasonable or fair. It is not as if the writ petitioner is the only non-tribal holding land in a tribal area. When the Special Deputy Collector passed an order on 10-09-2007, which order was served on the petitioner only on 16-09-2007, it is truly baffling as to how the petitioner could be dispossessed on the very next day. Clearly, such an attempt on the part of the Tahsildar, Asifabad, was to frustrate, if not totally defeat the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal, which has been provided for under the Statute. In cases of compelling public interest or with a view to avert or to prevent any further miscarriage, an action initiated promptly can be appreciated, but not in cases like that of the petitioner herein, who is said to be in possession of the property in question from August 1969 onwards. It is a well-recognized principle that an Appeal is an extension of the original proceedings. The Appellate Authority will be, as such, entitled to examine the fact situation and arrive at an independent conclusion. Further, if the writ petitioner could establish, to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority, that he was truly inducted into possession of the property in question in August 1969, through a valid transfer of title in his favour, perhaps, different considerations can flow, as he does not fall within the mischief of the Statute. This apart, the Primary Authority had tersely concluded the entire issue by holding that the transfer of land in favour of the writ petitioner is in contravention of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Regulations. But, he has not preferred to explain the reasons as to why he arrived at such a conclusion. Therefore, these are all questions liable to be examined by the Appellate Authority. When once the Appellate Authority is required to examine these calculations, it is also entitled to pass such interlocutory orders, as are considered necessary and appropriate. The act of the Tahsildar in dispossessing the petitioner on 17-09-2007 does not appear to be all that fair or just. In these set of circumstances, it is appropriate that the Agent to the Government shall take up the Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner on 27-09-2007 and decide the same at the earliest, at any rate on or before 31-07-2008. However, in the mean time, an interlocutory order is required to be passed in the extraordinary situation as has been brought about by the unreasonable act of the Tahsildar in dispossessing the writ petitioner from out of the land in less than 24 hours after service of the orders of the Primary Authority. Therefore, the Agent to the Government and the District Collector, Adilabad District, will take up the issue, by passing appropriate interim orders for restoration of possession in favour of the petitioner, if there was no overwhelming element of public interest, to the contra, within a week’s time from today. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 19th April 2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}