High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders in Case No.D4IROR/B/06 dated 19.12.2009, passed by the 1"t Respondent is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires, null and void and against the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner, in the interest of .iustice and equity l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(\,'IPMP. NO: '19799 OF 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impr.rglned orders passed by the 'ltt respondent in Case No.D4iROR/8/06 daled 19.12.2009, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMED RAHAIL AHMED Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1to3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI D. RAGHAVULU The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH - WRIT PEf,ITION No.15719 OF 2O1O . ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands in Sy.No.l83l2/A, to an extent of Acs.5.90 gts. and Sy.No. l83 l3/B to an extent of Acs.4.85 gts. respectively, situated at Loanvelly Village, Maldal Sirpur(T), Adilabad District. Due to family settlement, the petitioners are the possessors and pattadars of the suit schedule property and the names were also mutated in the revenue records and the revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners. While it being so, the respondent ./-"' ! I SK,J W.P.No.l57l9 OF 2010 2 No.4 filed an Appeal before the respondent No.2 in Case No.G.lLl65l2OO6, against the mutation of the narnes of tht: petitioners in the revenue record and the sarne was <lismissed on 16.10.2006. Against the said orders, the respondent No.4 hled revision petition in Case No.D,+/ROR/8/06, before the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Lands and Pattedar Pia-r;s Books Act, 197 I (for short, "the Act, l97l"l and the said revision was disposed on

19.12.2OO9 irnd remanded back to the Lower Authority and directed the respondent No.2 to take ol'er the possession cf the suit schedule lands and assign to the landless elg.ible Agency Scheduled tribe beneh,:Laries The said finding of the respondent No.l is illegzLl and arbitrary anrl without any jurisdiction

3. Learn,ed counsel for the petitioners hrrther submits thzrt the respondent No.1 has takerL into account of the contention made by the respondent No.4 as thele was a trarrsaction between the pattadar SK,J W.P.No.r5719 OF 2010 3 and the respondent No.4 without any valid document and directed the respondent No.2 to initiate the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959, and directed to take over the possession of the property' In fact the petitioners have not admitted the sa-le deed mentioned by the respondent No.4. Moreover, the respondent No.1 cannot direct the respondent No'4 to take over the lands from the possession of the petitioners and the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrar5r to the provisions of the Act, L97l and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned. orders passed by the respondent No' 1'

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on counter submits that the suit scheduled land is situated in the scheduled area' There is a pima-facie evidence of a sale transaction between the original pattadar and the respondent No.4 1a{d attracts the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh SK,J W.P.No.l5''19 OF 2010 4 Schedulerl Area Land Transfer Regulation I of 1970. The resprtndent No.1 has rightly passed inrpugned orders as oer the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Schedulecl Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959 read with Regulation I of 1970. The name of the respondent No.4 found in the cultivator column in the pahani fcrr the year lg74-75 and the rrLode of cultivation is shown as "Sada Bainama,,. The suit lands are urder the enjoyment of pattadar on the date of amendment of Regulation I of l97O to the Andhra Pradesh Sctreduled Area Land Transfer Regulatic,n Act, 1959 which calne into force with effecl from 03.02.797Ct. Therefore, while disposing the revision petition in the instant case, the respondent No.1 directed the respondent No.2 to initiate procr:r:dings under the Andhra pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, l97O and there are no rnerits and request_ed to dismiss the same. SK'J \ry.P.No.15719 OF 2010 5

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 basing on counter-a-ffidavit submits that mother of the petitioner Nos.l and 2 and mother-in-law of the pefitioner No.3 was absolute owner and sold property favour of the respondent No.4 before commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959 and its amendment I of l97O in the year, 1968. The transfer of land will not attract the provision of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959 and its amendment 1 of I97O, as such the hnding that taking possession of the land is not justifiabte and w'ithout considering evidence on record.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 further submits that the respondent No. t has rightly considered the sale deed executed by the mother of the petitioners and other revenue records. In view of the same, the respondent No.4 has already filed suit for declaration, recovery of possession before the SK.J W.P.No.15?19 OF 2010 6 Competenl- Civil Court for cancellation of pattas transferrecl in favour of the petitioners uide O.S,No.9 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad and requested t: direct the parties to agitate thei;: rights before the Competent Civil Court.

7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered 'riew that challenging the orders passed by the respondent No.2 uide dated 16.1,O.2OCt(t, the respondent No.4 filed revision before the restrrondent No.l under Section 9 of the Act, 197 1 ancl after hearing both sides, the respondent No. I uide Case No.D4lROR lB/06, dated .I9.12.2OO9, passed impugned orders directing the respondent No.2 to initiate prc,ceedings as per the Andhra Pladesh Scheduled ,\rea Lald Transfer Regulation Act., 1959 and furthe'r take over the possession of the subject land frorn the petitioners and distribute the same to the eligible triba_ts on the ground that there was a transactior:L between the original pattadar and the l 1 I i SK,J W.P.No.I57l9 OF 2010 7 respondent No.4, who are non-tribals AS transaction taken place in violation to the Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1970.

8. In fact there is no dispute with regard to the mother of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the mother- in-law of the petitioner No.3 was pattadar of the land As per family partition, the revenue authorities have issued title deeds and pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners and mutated their names in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the sarne, the respondent No.4 filed Appeal lefore the respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed on 16.10.2006, stating that the suit scheduled property stand patta in the name of Smt.Siddam Bhudevi from 1954-55 to 1997-98 and after death of the pattadar, the legal heirs of the deceased pattadar were got pattas with equal shares. The respondent No.4 claimed that he has purchased the land from the pattadar. The respondent r SK,J W.P.No.l5''19 OF 2010 8 No.1 merely basing on the submissions madr: by the respondent No.4, taken into account of the sada sale found in Lhe cultivator.column in the pahali for the year 1974- 75 and held that there is a violation to the Andhra ]ri'adesh Scheduled Area Land llransfer Regulatior:L Act, 79TO, in fact the respondent No.4 claimed tlLe land through sada sale deed in the year 1968. In view of the same, the view taken bt, the respondent No.1 is contrar5z to the record. 9. Moreover, the respondent No.4 in their (l,funter admitted tJrirt he has filed suit for declaration, recovery of possessic,n and also calcellation of patta irr Civil Court. Onc,: the respondent No.4 himself filed suit for recovery of ltossession, the respondent No.1 declaring that the lespondent No.4 is in possession of the property is contrary to the record and the same is liable to be set aside. The respondent No.1 has not taken into account of the pahanies from the clzrte of disposal of re,vision and possession of the petitionr:rs. If I I SK'J W.P.No.15719 OF 2010 9 there is arry violation as on the date of enquiry' the authorities have to initiate proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1970. But the respondent No'1 cannot direct the respondent No.2 to take over the possession of the private lands merely basing on the earlier entries in the pahanies in revision proceedings under Section 9 ofthe Act,l97l- 10. ln view of the same, the orders passed by the respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside as the respondent No. t has no power and jurisdiction to direct the respondent No.2 to take over the possession from the private parties in revision proceedings under the A.P.Rights in Lands and Pattedar Pass Books Act' t971. In view of the above find'ing, the writ petition is il. allowed, by setting aside the orders passed by the respondent No.1 uide Case No'D4/ROR/8iO6' dated lg.l2.2OOg. There shall be no order as to costs' -/ /. I :) SK,J W.P.No.15719 OF 2010 10 Mirsr:ellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall stald cl,c,sed. f'hat Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above "'iEI #T+iEotb?[$1f,Bii'JlFi?t"="' \ witnass rHE HoN', BLE* SEVENTH DAY OF JI /ITRUE COPY// l.tl ^38[ii,ffsg8lL?AiH ECTION OFFICER t5 J To, iii:$lil{:ir"i;i,fiii'^is*.+Hltryd,fltx3lrl'f; ir''o'oo'"''"' ; $##r$ffistrEffirfrt'ffi ilr;;ffi ,:,,, , t*"$+l SgtB *o''ou'LU' Advocate toPucl 8. Two CD CoPies BM I I , , I HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.15719 ot 2010 1 BE S'Irl, ( ,l t)\ /t 0 5 lli'i 2'ti:i 'I \ ,-..4--- ALLOWING ]'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS