Government of Andhra Pradesh

Abstract

 

Tribal Welfare – Revision Petition filed by Sri Allu Pitchi Reddy and three others under section 6 of APSALTR, 1959 against the order dated 19.6.2001 of the Agent to Government,  Khammam in CMA No.7/98- Dismissed – Orders – Issued.  

-         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-          

Social Welfare (LTR.2) Department

 

G.O.Ms.No.4                                                              Dated::20-1-2004.

 

                                                                                   Read the following:

 

1.      From Sri K.Vinaya Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner R.P dt.27.6.2001.

2.      From the Collector, Khammam Lr.Rc.No.F1/CMA.7/98 dt.27.5.2002.

                                                  

ORDER:

                        In the reference first read above Sri Allu Pitchi Reddy and  others have filed Revision Petition through their Counsel before the Government against the order dated 19.6.2001 of the Agent to Government, Khammam in CMA No.7/98 .After examination of the matter, notices have been sent to the petitioners and to the Counsel for the petitioners to attend the hearing on 26.8.2002. After adjournment, the Revision Petition has finally come up for hearing 9.9.2002.  The Counsel for the Petitioner attended the hearing and presented his arguments in line with the R.P filed before the Government. He has also filed written arguments.  The main contentions of the arguments are as follows:

 

(a). The order of the learned agent to Government Khammam is contrary to law

     and material evidence on record and Acts and circumstances of the case.

 

 (b).The learned agent to Government ought to have seen that the revenue         records  clearly show the validity of the transaction having took place way back prior to the commencement of Act between Korsa Peerappa and the present revision petitioners and same is borne by Record, and the names are very much found from 1961 on wards till today on occupant / cultivator column and the

land has  been cultivated under different extents by the petitioners.  Further the respondent No.1 ought to have examined the revenue receipts paid up to 2000 by the petitioners, as such the impugned order is not sustainable.

 

(c).The respondent ought to have seen the allegation stating that there is a change of different ink and interpolation is not correct and it will not effect the rights of petitioners as records are under the control of the department.  As such question of interpolation is without any basis and petitioners cultivating the land since several years as a rightful owners.  The petitioners have established right                                         

                 

since four decades are already passed, and as such claim is untenable and suit is time barred one.The Counsel for the Petitioners has finally prayed to set aside the order ofthe Agent to Government Khammam district.

 

 

  2.   The material papers and records have been examined by the Government. The Court of the Agent to Government has held as follows: 

 

(a)   On thorough verification of the sale agreements filed by the appellants, it is found that they are only the sada sale agreements.  The hand writings of the agreements dated 11.12.60 and 11.1.1960 are different to the signatures of the Document writer.  Thus it is clear that the agreements were made after the promulgation of the Regulation 1/59 r/w amended Regulation 1/70 in order to get out of from the clutches of the L.T. Regulations.  Further, it is also clear from the Judgment of the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad in CRP No.1087/96 in Bangaru Rama Tulasamma Vs.Yada Mastan Reddy and others  that “Sada sale deed not duly stamped and registered under section 17)B) of registration Act, cannot be admitted as an evidence.  Thus the appellants failed to prove their arguments to substantiate their legal right over the land covered under appeal and failed to file corroborative evidences.

 

(b)   Regarding their possession held over the disputed land covered under the appeal and in order to ascertain correct position of the disputed land, the village records i.e., pahanies have been obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandrugonda for the crucial period for which the LTR provisions came into force.  The pahani is a basic record of the village, which gives the details of the Sy.No. its extent and assessment, nature of the land and also the names of pattadars and Sy.No.1101/Sha/AA is consisting of Ac.9.00.

 

(c)               As per the entries available in the pahani, the name of Korsa Perappa, who is a grand father of the non – official respondent herein exists in pattadar column as well as in occupant”s column for the years 1968-69, 1969-70,1970-71,1971-72 and 1972-73. It has also been recorded and declared as “Shikamdar” under Sec 67 A of AP(TA)LR Act 1317 fasli.  The names of Sri Malladi Laxmi Narsaiah, Allu Pullareddi, Allakunta Somaiah are also available for an extent of Ac.6.00, 1-21and 1-00 respectively for all the above years in occupant”s column, with a clear indication of different inks and hand writings, which goes to show that theabove names are subsequent  developments and a clear interpolation done with a malafied intention in order to come up on record.

 

(d)   The land revenue receipts filed by the appellants in token of having paid the L.R to the Government for the land held by the appellants for the crucial period have been verified.  They were issued on chits written on white papers and did not contain any official  stamp or seal or any authentication.  This clearly shows that the L.R receipts are only created for the purpose of establishing their right before this court.  Therefore, these chits written on white paper cannot be considered as valid documents.  Thus, the appellants failed to prove their possession even by way of producing land revenue receipts in having paid the LR to the Government prior to the LTR provisions came into force.

 

(e)   On further verification of the arguments it is seen that the appellants say that the Sec.(11) CPC is applicable in the matter.  Verified the lower court orders and the extents involved in the LTR cases in the matter and the persons against whom the cases were intiated.  On examination of these cases, it is evident that Sri Korsa Perappa, a tribal was the petitioner and different persons were made as Respondents. The land involved in those matters was also different.  The lower court erred in examine in detail regarding the extents involved and the persons made as respondents.  Therefore, the principles of Resjudicata u/s (11)CPC do not apply  in this case.  The Respondent in the instant case was never made as a party in earlier cases nor he was summoned in any case.  The extents shown were also different.  The Respondent was never served with a notice nor represented the matter before the lower court.  Because of his poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, he never attended the lower court to defend his case.  If he had been given an opportunity to file his evidence, definitely his possession over the land might have been established.  Therefore, it is irrelevant to say that the principles of Resjudicata apply in the matter.

 

(f)   It is evident from the lower court orders dated 6.12.1997 , passed in LTR case No.247/97/CHG that the land under dispute is a 38E patta land granted to Sri Kursa Peerappa, who is the grand father of the Respondent by the Tahsildar, Kothagudem under AP(TA), Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.  This land neither can be sold by the tenant nor can be purchased by anybody without prior permission from the Government, with in (8) years from the data of its grant.  Even by this Court, any holding by the appellants of this land, is illegal and void as per section 48A of A.P.Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950.  If a protected tenant, who is not in possession of the land as on the notified date, but still by virtue of explanation to Section 38-E, got a certificate of owner ship, has necessarily to take back possession either under section 32 or Section of the Act.  Thus the  appellants have got no right to enter in to the possession of the land, whiich was granted for 38E patta certificate to the grand father of the Respondent under A.P.T.& A.L.Act, 1950.

 

    

3.   Further the agreement of sale was dated 11.12.1960, which is not registered.

Therefore it is prayed beyond doubt that the transfer of the land in favour of the

petitioners is in contravention of Sec 3(1) (a) of APSALTR, 1959.

 

 

4.  In view of the above circumstances, the Government see no reason to interfere with the order dated 19.6.2001 in CMA No.7/98 of the Agent  to Government, Khammam.  In the result,  the order of the Agent to Government , Khammam is up held and the R.P filed by Sri Allu Pitchi Reddy and others is dismissed.    The Counsel for the Revision Petitioners is requested to inform his clients accordingly.

 

5.   The Collector, Khammam is requested to take necessary further action in the

matter.

 

(By order and in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh)

 

 

                                                                                M.Chaya Ratan

                                                                 Principal Secretary to Government

To

Sri Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar,

   Advocate,

   H.No.1-3-183/40/68/C/2,2nd Park, Gandhinagar,

   Hyderabad.

Sri Allu Pitchi Reddy,

   S/o A.Laxma Reddy,

  ‘R/o Rajapuram(v),Vutapalli (Revenue Circle) Chandrugonda (M),Khammmam        district.

The Collector Khammam (w.e) Original records.

1.SDC (TW) Paloncha  LTR case file No.996/79/Kgm & 997/79/Kgm pages 42.

2.SDC (TW),Paloncha case file No.998/79/Kgm total pages 66.

3.SDC(TW) Palvoncha case file No.999/79/Kgm total pages 54.

4.SPC (TW), Paloncha case file No.1247/97/Chg total pages 104.

5.Agent to Govt.Khammam case file R.Dis.No.CMA.7/98 dt.228.

Copy to the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, Khammam district

 

 

//Forwarded by order//

 

 

                                                                            SECTION OFFICER.