HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 27776 of 1995 Dated: 26-09-2007 Between: Kintali Bhaskara Rao ..... PETIT AND Agent to the government of Andhr Pradesh (District collector) Vizianagaram and another. .....RESPOND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27776 of 1995 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.28.92 cents situated in Sy.Nos.4-1, 4-2, 66-3, 40-1, 40-3, 40-5, 42 and 92 of Levidi village, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagarm District and to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of Acs.28.92 cents of land at the prevailing market value. This writ petition relates to Acs.28.92 cents of land (for short ‘subject land’) situated in Levidi village, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District, notified as scheduled area. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the said land having inherited from his ancestors. The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) initiated proceedings in O.P.No.75 of 1974 under the provisions of Section 3(2) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (for short ‘regulation 1 of 1959’) for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he is in possession of the property in contravention of sub-section (i) of Section 3 of regulation 1 of 1959. On 31-07- 1976 he passed an order of ejection in respect of the subject land. The said land was subsequently assigned to tribals. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent-Agent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said appeal was closed in view of the fact that the appeal filed against the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for ryotwari patta under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 1970 (for short “Regulation 2 of 1970”) is pending before the Director of Settlement and that the matter can be moved after the petitioner succeeds in the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner, whose claim was rejected for ryotwari patta, by the Primary Authority filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the said appeal which was registered as A.P.No.17 of 1977 was allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 29-02- 1980. The Appellate Authority gave a categorical finding that the petitioner proved his title, possession and enjoyment over the subject land to enable him to claim rights over the scheduled land by way of grant of ryotwari patta under Section 7 of Regulation 2 of 1970. The Appellate Authority also found that the predecessors of the petitioner were in continuous possession of the lands from the year 1906 and subsequently, the petitioner is in continuous possession and that no tribal was in possession from 1906 to1970. Following the order passed by the Director of Settlement granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner, he filed an application dated 27-08- 1980 before the first respondent with a request to cancel the assignment made in favour of the tribals and restore the land to him. As no action was taken by the first respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16852 of 1984 in this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 03-08-1992 whereby a direction was given to restore the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent and dispose of the same afresh in the light of the order dated 29-02-1980 passed by the Director of Settlements in Appeal No.17 of 1977. Consequently, the appeal was restored and disposed of by the first respondent by his order dated 12-09-1995 holding that the title in respect of the land is in dispute and that since Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 is intended to protect the interest of the tribals, the petitioner is not entitled to restoration of the land. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri K.Koka Raghava Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that once a settlement patta was granted under the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970, the said order prevails over the orders passed under Regulations 1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970. In support of his contention the learned senior counsel referred to and relied upon the judgments of this Court in Sadanapalli Ramachandra and others v. The Special Deputy Collector, Palwancha District, Khammam[1] and Pandi Ramulu v. Agent to Government, East Godavari District, Kakinada[2]. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that against the order passed by an Appellate Authority under the Land Transfer Regulations, a revision lies to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and that since the petitioner failed to avail the remedy of revision, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that questioning the order of Director of Settlement by which the petitioner was granted ryotwari patta, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurapam Mandal filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (presently Commissioner of Appeals) and that the said appeal is pending. He further submitted that the appeal, which was stated to be filed in the year 1992 was returned in the year 2003 and that it is not restored so far in view of the destruction of record in a bomb blast by Maoists. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties. With respect to the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader regarding alternative remedy, a revision is ordinarily not considered an effective alternative remedy[3]. At any rate, since the writ petition was admitted about 12 years back and has been pending since then, it would result in gross injustice if it is thrown out on the ground of alternative remedy. As regards the contention of the learned senior counsel that in view of the order of the Director of Settlements, granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner, he is entitled to restoration of the land, the two judgments of this Court cited supra support this contention. I n Sadanapalli Ramachandra (supra 1) the petitioner therein was granted a patta under the provisions of Section 8 read with Rule 17 of Andhra Pradesh (Mahals Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 and an order of ejectment was passed against him and respondent No.4 therein by the competent authority under Regulation 1 of 1959. The learned Single Judge, who decided the said case held that Section 33 of the Andhra Pradesh (Mahals Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 provided that the provisions of the Regulation shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law, custom, usage or agreement for the time being in force or any decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority and the order under the said regulation prevails over the order passed in favour of the fourth respondent therein under Regulation 1 of 1959. In Pandi Ramulu (2 supra) an identical situation arose. The petitioner therein who was in possession of land in an agency area suffered an order of ejectment under Regulation 1 of 1959. However, on his application filed by him under Regulation 2 of 1970, the Settlement Officer granted a ryotwari patta in his favour. This court held that under Section 7 of the 1970 Regulation, every ryot in the Scheduled areas, to which regulation applies, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all cultivable lands and Section 9 of the Regulation lays down that the Settlement Officer shall inquire into the nature and history of all lands in respect of which ryotwari patta is claimed and decided. It is further held that whenever an order under Section 9 is passed, the aggrieved person has a remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 9 by way of an appeal and that once the matter is settled under Section 7, the only course open to the claimant is to file an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 9 and no fresh proceedings can be initiated for ejection if an order under Section 7 has been passed. The learned Judge relied upon an earlier judgment of this Court i n N.Appa Rao v. Agency Divisional Officer[4] while coming to the said conclusion. In view of the above mentioned judgments, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the land or for the alternative payment of compensation deserves to be accepted. In Regulation 2 of 1970, I find a provision similar to Section 33 of Andhra Pradesh (Mahals Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 considered in Sadanapalli Ramahchandra. Section 15 of Regulation 2 of 1970 reads as under: Section 15: Regulation to override other laws: The provisions of this Regulation shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Schedules Areas) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1951, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Scheduled Arrears) Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) (Amendment) Regulation, 1960, or any other law, custom, usage or agreement for the time being in force, or any decree or order of a Court, tribunal or other authority.” In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the order of the first respondent in declining to grant relief in favour of the petitioner is contrary to law and the specific provisions of Section 15 of Regulation 2 of 1970. As regards the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the appeal filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer against the order of Director of Settlement granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner has not become final, on his own showing the appeal said to have been filed in the year 1992 was returned in the year 2003 and no material is produced to show that it was represented and the same is pending. Therefore, this contention cannot be countenanced. Having held that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the property in question, the further question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in the writ petition? It has to be noted that on the petitioner’s own showing he was dispossessed and the land was assigned to eligible tribals in the area. The petitioner, therefore, sought for compensation. In a writ proceeding under Article 226 it is not possible for this court to decide the market value of the property in respect of which the petitioner is seeking compensation in lieu of delivery of possession. In the light of the findings given hereinabove, in my considered opinion the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to move a competent court of law by way of a civil suit seeking compensation for the petitioner’s lands which were taken in pursuance of the orders passed under the 1959 Regulations. Liberty is, therefore, given to the petitioner in this regard. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 26-09-2007 KLP [1] 1978(2)APLJ 244 [2] 1998(1) ALD 783 [3] AIR 1968 SC 13 [4] 1988 (2) APLJ 9 (SN)