GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABSTRACT

Tribal Welfare Department - A.P.Schedule Areas Land TransferRegulation 1959 - Revision Petition Under Section 6 of the
Regulation filed by Smt.Punem Laxmi against the orders of the Agent to Government, WestGodavari Dist. in SRA No.9/90, dated 9-5-92 - Rejected - Orders - Issued.


SOCIAL WELFARE (LTR) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.67 Dated: 25-7-2001


Read the following:

1. From Smt.P.Laxmi, West Godavari Dist., R.P. dated 20-2-93.
2. Govt.Memo.No. 5588/F1/93-1,dt. 4-3-93.
3. From the Collector, W.G.Dist. Lr.Roc No. 5951/97/F4, dt. 20-7-99.
4. From the Collector,West Godavari Dist. Lr.Roc. No.F4/3746/2000, dt. 8-6-2001.

***

ORDER:

In the reference 1st read above Smt.P.Laxmi, West Godavari District filed RevisionPetition before the Government against the orders of the Agent to Government,West GodavariDist. in SRA No. 9/90, dated 9-5-92.

2. The following are the main grounds urged in the Revision Petition:

i) The order of the lower court appellate court is contrary to law, weight of evidence andvitiated by material irregularities.

ii) The lower appellate court grossly erred in saying that the lease in favour of theRevision Petitioner herein is a benami transaction.

iii) The lower appellate court should have seen that the plea of benami cannot be sustainas per the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Hence the lease infavour of the Revision Petitioner is valid and binding and she
is lessee as per the lease deed dated 24-4-84.

iv) The lower court/appellate court ought to have seen that the lease between tribals neednot be registered and an unregistered lease deed is also admissable in evidence.

v) The lower appellate court should have seen that there is no evidence to show that thelease is a benami transaction. The lower court not verified the records properly.

vi) The lower appellate court have not considered the evidence of the Revision Petition.There is no evidence to the respondent to say that SriShaik Barina Saheb is in possessionof the land leassed out to the Revision Petitioner. The lower appellate court ought nothave given its finding basing on the evidence of Sri V.Venkata Swami, the lessor withoutany corrobaration to his statement.

vii) The lower appellate court ought to have seen that there is absolutely no evidence toshow that the revision petitioner is the concubine of one Sri Shaik Barina Saheb.

viii)The lower appellate court should have seen that there is ample evidence to thepetitioner to show that she is lessee and is cultivating the land in dispute.

ix) The lower appellate court agent to have seen that the transfer of land between triblesfor consideration is valid and binding unless the contrary is proved.

x) The lower appellate court ought to have seen that there is document to show that thelessor executed to lease deed in favour of Revision Petitioner and as such the oralevidence of the lessor unsupported by any other evidence, cannot be taken intoconsideration.

xi) The lower appellate court should have seen that the revision petitioner is only in thepossession of the land in dispute and she is paying land revenue also regularly. The orderof lower court is based on assumptions and it is very vague.

3. In the reference 2nd read above, the Collector, West Godavari District has beenrequested to send parawise remarks on
the above Revision Petition along with the connected original records to Government fordisposal of the Revision Petition.

4. In the reference 3rd read above, the Collector, West Godavari District has furnishedthe parawise remarks against the grounds putforth in the Revision Petition.

5. The Collector, West Godavari District has reported among others that Sri Shaik BasinaSaheb, a non-tribe obtained the
lease of lands in R.S.No.63 measuring Ac. 1.44 in favour of Smt.Punem Laxmi a tribe bycaste, who is his concubine by  making executant of the lease deed VidisalaVenkataswamy, believing that the lease deed is being obtained in his name for 9 yearswhich was actually obtained for 99 years. The statement of the Village Assistant is anunquestionable evidence that Sri Shaik Basina Saheb is in possession and enjoyment of thepetition schedule land. These facts are clearly establishing that the lease deed obtainedin favour of Smt. Punem Laxmi is benami by nature. Possession of land by a non-tribe evenon lease as per sec.3(2)(a) is violative of A.P.S.A.L.T.R. 1/59 as amended by Regulation1/70. All this shows that there is no substance in
the Revision Petition filed by Smt.Punem Laxmi, concubine of Sri Shaik Basina Saheb.

6. In the reference 4th cited, the Collector, West Godavari District has further reportedthat Sri Shaik Barena Saheb is not residing in Laxmipuram Village of Buttaigudem Mandal,left the village at about (5) five years back and his whereabouts are not
know. There are no immovable properties in the village. He has also reported thatSmt.Punam Lakshmi left the village at above

(5) five years back and her whereabouts are not known. Hence,the authenticating of recordscould not be obtained. He has also submitted that according to the Special DeputyCollector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, the land measuring Ac. 2.88 cts. covered by R.S.No.63 of Laxmipuram Village is under possession of one Sri Vadesala Venkata Swamy,S/o.Simhabaludu of the same village.

7. The Revision Petition is examined based on the records and material evidence. TheCounsel for the Petitioner has been
requested to attend for the hearing on 27-3-2000 before the Secretary to Government(Tribal Welfare), Social Welfare Department, but he did not appear for the hearing. Againthe Counsel for the petitioner and petitioner have been requested for
hearing on 17-4-2000. Smt.Punam Laxmi appeared for the hearing and she represented thatactually she was cultivating the land before handing over the land to Sri V.Venkata Swamya "Naik" by caste and Sri Shaik Barina Saheb is not residing in the village forthe last 4-5 years and he has nothing to do with the suit land.

8. Government after careful examination of the Revision Petition and the case records andmaterial papers and contents of
the letter of the Collector, West Godavari Dist. found that the Lease Agreement is notvalid. The lessee a non-tribal and his
tribal wife are not in the village for the last 5 years. The lessor a tribal is inpossession of the land.

9. In view of the above, the Government arrived at a conclusion that there is no need tointerfere with the order dated 9-3-92 in SRA No. 9/90 of the Collector, West GodavariDistrict. Therefore the Revision Petition filed by Smt.Punem Laxmi (Lessee of the suitland) is rejected and the orders of the Agent to Government, West Godavari Dist. areconfirmed. The Counsel for the petitioner is requested to inform his client accordingly.

10. The Collector, West Godavari District is requested to take necessary further action inthe matter.


(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)


C.R.BISWAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT


To
Sri M.V.Durga Prasad,Advocate, 37-Indiranagar,Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. ... (By RPAD)

The Collector,W.G.Dist.,Eluru  (The following case records are returned herewith)
SRA No. 9/90 Pages 60 only ... (By Regd.Parcel)

The Special Deputy Collector(Tribal Welfare),K.R.Puram, West Godavari Dist

Smt.Punam Laxmi, N.D.Peta, Polavaram (M),West Godavari Dist.
- through Spl.Dy.Collector(TW) K.R.Puram, West Godavari Dist.

SF/SCs


//FORWARDED BY ORDER//


SECTION OFFICER.