GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tribal Welfare Department - Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulaion, 1959 - Revision Petition filed by Sarvasri Peetala Latchanna and Peetala Venkanna Son of Arjunudu - Resident of Ankannagudem village - Polavaram Mandal - West Godavari District against the orders of Agent to Government - West Godavari District in S.R.A.Nos. 69/78, 70/78, 71/78, 72/78, 73/78 and 74/78, dated 31-1-1983 - Disposed of - Orders - Issued.
SOCIAL WELFARE (LTR) DEPARTMENT
1.Revision Petition filed by Sarvasri Peetala Latchanna and Peetla Venkanna, dt. nil.
2.Govt. Memo.No.766/F.2/83-2, dated 15-4-1992.
3.Govt.Memo.No. 761/F2/83-2, dated 3-2-1984.
4. Fromthe HC of A.P., Hyderabad orders in W.P.Nos.2547/88, 3263/88, 3264/88, 3265/88 and3267/88, dt.8-2-97 and 22-12-98.
5.Revision petition filed by Sri P.Lachanna dt.17-2-1997.
OR D E R:
In the referenst 1st read above,S/Sri Peetala Lachanna and Peetala Venkanna, R/o Ankannagudem (V),Polavaram (M), WestGodavari District have filed R.P.against the orders of Agent to Government, West GodavariDistrict in CMA Nos.69/78 and 74/78 dt.31-1-1983.
2. In the reference 2nd and 3rd readabove Government rejected the Revision Petition.
3. In the reference 4th read above,the High Court of Andhra Pradesh while setting aside the orders of Government in thereference 2nd and 3rd above ordered for fresh consideration by the Government inaccordance with Law.
4. Sri P.Lachanna has filed freshRevision Petition in the reference 5th read above.
5. Government have issued notices tothe counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner U/s 6 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled AreasLand Transfer Regulation, 1959 vide reference 6th read above.
6. The following are the principalgrounds urged in the Revision Petition:-
(i) The orders of the Lower Courtspassing ejectment decree against the petitioner and order for restoration of Land to theRespondent i.e., Sri M.Mutyalu under A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1/59 asamended by Regulation No.1/79 are contrary to Law, erroneous without jurisdiction andshould be setaside.
ii) In view of the timelag from26-4-82 (date of hearing of the appeal) and 31-1-83 (date of order) the several pointsthat arose for consideration in the appeal are not considered and the matter be directedto be dealt with afresh.
iii) The Lower Courts erred intreating the petitioner as Non-Tribal on an erroneous interpretation of the constitution(ST) order 1950.
iv) The Lower Courts erred in itsfinding that the community Mala in the Scheduled Area ceased to be a S.T. and the findingis opposed to Law.
v) The Lower Court ought to havefollowed the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dt.23-6-1977 in W.P.No.6338/1975and held that they have no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint and dismissed the sameas the petitioners not Non-Tribals.
vi) The Lower Courts failed tonotice that the lands are acquired by the predecessors in title of petitioners by poduCultivation and that there was no evidence of acquisition and enjoyment by thepredecessors in title of the respondents Sri M.Mutyalu that they are only ijaradars orfarmers of revenue and that they was no transaction transfer of Land by the predecessorsin title of the second respondent in favour of the predecessors in title of thepetitioners and that they have no lrights over the land.
vii) The Lower Courts failed to;note that the enquiry into lthe issue of "Patta" has not become final and thatthe question being subjudice and pending appeal before the Director of Settlements,Hyderabad cannot be referred to and relied upon. The Courts below erred in assuming thatthe absence of "PATTA" negatives the rights claimed by the petitioners.
viii) The Lower Court failed tto;lenquire into the time when the predecessors in title of the second respondent acquiredthe lands which are the subject matter of each enquiry as to ;the date of the allegedlease. The particulars of the extent covered by it and the evidence regarding enjoyment ofthe land by the predecessors in interest of second respondent for the purpose of invokingthe provisions of Regulation 1/59 and the amended regulation 1/70 which are notretrospective in operation.
ix) The Courts below failed toconsider the claim that the petitioners acquired title by "Adverse Possession".
7. The case has come up ;for hearingon 10-7-2000. The counsel for the petitioner has appeared and given arguments. During thecourse of hearing the counsel for the petitioner has adduced that the P.S. lands are partof the agency area of Gutala Estate and this estate was taken over by lthe Governmentunder the provisions of Act XXVI of 48 read with regulation IV of 1951 and as such theAPSALTR, 1959 read with regulation 1/70 is not applicable to the Agency areas of GutalaEstate and the Tribunals have ordered for eviction of the petitioners from the P.S. landsstating that they have taken the lands on lease from an Izarader, which is void. Hecontended that as per Madras Estates Land Act (1 of 1908) and Izaradar cannot be said tobe debarred from bringing the holding to sale and therefore, lthe orders of the lowercourts may be set aside and the Revision Petition may be allowed on merits.
8. In view of the abovecircumstances, the matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, West Godavari Districtfor fresh enquiry land to pass necessary orders duly taking into consideration the Actsand Regulations as contended by the Counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly the RevisionPetition is disposed of.
9. The Counsel for the petitioner isrequested to inform his clients accordingly. The Collector, West Godavari District isrequested to take necessary further action in the matter.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OFANDHRA PRADESH)
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
SriK.Manga Chary, Advocate, 1-9-626 (New-55),
TheCollector, West Godavari Dist., Eluru.
TheSpl.Deputy Collector (TW), W.G.Dist.,Eluru.
TheMandal Revenue Officer, Polavaram, W.G.Dist.
// Forwarded :: by Order //