'1 . Kathi Swamy v. The State of Tehngana

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to,freat Petitioners villages Gudur and Ayodhyapuram Revenue villages as Schedulei Areas for all revenue, registration, administration of these villages, also for forthcoming local body elections. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 10: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 & 9: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: S.C. FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent No.8: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMEilT Counsel for the Respondent_No.10: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondenis-No.12 to 14: SRI CHIKKUDU PRABHAKAR ,t The Court made the following: ORDER l' i ";lil ii '.1 : la' ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEE;IiIAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 5126 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Pe tition is filed to declarc -LLe action of the RcspondentAuthorities treating Gudur and z\yoclhyapuram Revenue Villages of Gudur Mandal, Mahabub,lbad (wrongly typed as Mahmubabad) District as Scheduled Area Villages is illegal and contrary- to Scheduled Areas (Part-B States) Order of

1950. Consequently, a direction is sought to respondents to treat Gudur and Ayodhyapuram Revenue Vil ages of Gudur Mandal, Mahabubabaci District as non-scheduk,d Areas in view of non-mentioning of lhese two villages as sr:heduled area villages in Narsampet Talucl in the Presiden _i:rl Notification (Part-B States) Order i950, dated 07.12.1950.

2. Originally, the Writ Petition was in;dtuted against 11 respondents. Later Respondents 72, l3 and l4 were lmplcaded as per Court Order datcd 3O.O7.2O2:; in IA No. 2 of 2o2s' 3. The case of petitioners, in brief, is that they are -i" permanent residents of Gudur and Ayodhyapu -a.m Villages of Gudur Mandal, Mahabubabacl District, hav rg residential ) houses and agricultural lands mentioned in the writ affidavit. The cxtents of land possessed by them is immaterial for the lis, hence not extracted. Previously, these villages were in erstwhile Warangal District and their families have been residing there for more than 10O years. They_ contend that Gudur and Ayodhyapuram Villages of Gudur Mandal are not notified as Schedule Area villages under the Scheduled Areas (Part-B States) C)rder of 1950 (for brevi[z 'the 1950 Order'). However, respondents have wrongly treated these two villages as Scheduled Area. .

3.1. [t is contended, neither the"1950 Order nor other Notifications have declared these villages as Schedule Area and the said viilages are not notified as schedule areas in the list by the 195O Order. As per the information of petitioners, the President of India is to specify certain areas in Part-,f and Part B States as Scheduled Areas as per V Schedule to the Constitution. Required information was received from Part-A State Govcrnments in time but the same could not be completed in respecl of Purt .B Slates., Therefore, r he Sc'Iieduled Areas (Part-A States) Order of 195O was published on 26.O1.195O and for Part-B States, Scheduled Areas (Par[-B States) Order of 195O -) was published on O4.O4. 1950. The Governmen of I{yderabad sent proposais for preparation of scheduled areas before bifurcation and a draft was also prepared on 23.C3.1950.

3.2. It is contended that Gudur and Ayodhyapuram Villages of Narasampet Taluq were not notifie l in the 195O Order dated 07 .12.1950. This non-inclusion is e,,ident not only from 1950 Order but also from the letter of the District Collector, Warangal, dated 08.12.197a including certain non- schedule villages in the sub plan area and relision of list of schedule areas by rescinding the Schedule Areas (J)art-A States) Order 1950. lt is further stated, these two vill:rges were formed before 1930 and they have very less population of STs. as per the census of 1951, 7967, 1971 and 1981. P,:titioners have given table of percentage of total population, ton-tribal and tribal population and the percentage of STs. Ii 4reed not be extracted.

3.3. On the strength of the above information, petitioners made several represcntations to Sta]e Government not to treat the two villages in question as scheclule area -t villages. The Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Welfare issued procecdings dated O7.12:2014.to the State'I'riba1 Welfare 4 \--f\ - Department for bifurcation of schedule areas notifled under V Scheduie to the Constitution in the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, respondent-authorities havc not corrected the mistake. While so, petitioners have givcn representations dated

16.01.2025 and 17.O1.2O25 requesting not to treat the two villages in question as schedule area villages, however, no orders are passed so far. The r:espondent-authorities are not allowing registrations by petitioners and are not permitting them to contest in local body elections and Zilla Parishad elections. When applied under the RTI Act, the 9th respondent reptied that no information is available with regard to the two villages in question. The 3'd Respondent District Collector,

4. . Mahabubabad filed counter rebutting the contentions of petitioners. He states that the then Hyderatad State Govcrnment issued the Tribal Arcas Regulation 1359F (No.III of 1359F). Accordingly, the TribaL Areas Notification 1949 was issued uide Notification No. 2.. dated 16 11.1949 (16th Dai, -l 1359F). In Part-II of this Notification, 72 villages of Narsampet Taluq including 'Goarur' (Gudur) at S1-No.68 and 'Radhiapur' (Ayodhyapur) at Sl.No. 69 werc notified- In furtherance of the ) ) letter dated 17 .lo.Ig7a of the Secretary to G,rvernment, SW Department, proposals uidc $f,.I!,t. 86/13046/78, dated la.I2.I97A were addressed to the Secretary to Gosernment, SW Department for correction of names of village;, by the then District Collector, Warangal. In para No.6 it is recorded as follows " for 'Ayodhyapur' village, in the notification at S1. No. 69 it was mentioned as Radhiapur'. Thcrefore, by idenirhrrg the correct name of the village, Avodhyapur was mentioned in the 1i;t sent by this , 'fficc. Further, the proposals for cdrrection of name cf the village Gudur at Para-8 it is recorded as follows: ' In so far as 'Gudur (Code No. 177) village ir; concerned, I am to inform that the name of this village was wron 11.,, spelt in the notification at Sl. No 68 as 'Goarur Therefore, by idt ntifying correct name of the village, at SI.No. 20 of the list sent bv thrs office, it was menl ioned as Grrdrrr In Para-13 it is stated ' I am to itrform that there are several dLscrepucies in spelling the names of the scheduled villages in the notif()ation. In Annexure III o, this letfer the names of the villages ar r;pelled in the Presidential Notification and the co.rresponding nafirrs with correct spelling-arr: mentroned. It is desirable to correct the trames of the scheduled villages in the notification as per correcled nelres ntentioned in Col. No. 7 of Annexure II[ of this letter. ' 6 \*-..I - \ \

4.1. The 195O Order was issued on the basis of the Tribal Areas Notilication 1 949. Therefore, it is stated, it is not correct to say that Gudur and Ayodhyapur Villages are not notified as schedule areas. Petitioners based on typographical mistakes are contending that th-e two villages in question are not notified as schedule areas.

5. Respondents 12 to 14, who have come on record as per the orders of this Court, filed their counter affidavit, more or less on the lines of the counter afhdavit of the 3,d respondent- District Collector. Respondents t2.,to 14 filed counter stating that despite Guduru and Ayodhyapuram Villages are in the Jurisdiction of V Schedule of Constitution uide Proceedings Presidential Notification (Part B States) Order, 1950, dated

07.12.1950 and few clerical mistakes took place by the clerks in printing the names of the villages in the above Aaid order because of that petitioners cannot be said that the above said Villages are not included in the Presidential Order and they do not have right to approach this Court to declare Guduru and Ayodhyapuram Villages as Ncrn- Agency Villages is not valid in -i' the eye of law. 7

5.1. It is further stated, part B 19S0 order, dated

07.12.1950 has categorically stated the above sarcl villages were shown in the Taluq of Narsampet at Sl.Nos.80 and 84 by clerical mistake shown as Guduru and Ayodhyapur ar rcl the same is clearly shown that those villages geographicall-y situated in the Jurisdiction of the V Schedule of Constitution an I for the past 75 years, villages are in the jurisdiction of V S:hedule. The V Schedule is basic structure of the Constitution zLncl the same was upheld by the Apex Court in a catena tf judgments including the case of Sarnqta u. State of Anat.h:ra. prad.eshl which is the iand mark judgment to protect the S,:hedule Tribe People Rights in the Jurisdiction of V Schedule rl Constitution of India. Hence, the contentions of petitioners aro not valid in the eye of law.

5.2. Though the above said villages are in l9art B states, 195O Order of the Presidential Ordcr, dated 0.,.12.1950 and geographicalll, situated along with other vi lzLges of the Jurisdiction of V Schedule, the clerical mistat es cannot Lre relicd upon by Petitioners to treat the above slLirl vjllagg. ,. non-scheduled area villages. Because, the clerical mistakes arc '(1e97) 8 SCC 191 IJ curable and the Hon,ble president of India is only having powcr to correct the .iurisdiction of V Schedule, hence, the present Writ Pet.ition is not maintainzrble the cyc of [:rw. 5.3. It is also stated, with regard to Schcduled area clerical mistakes took place in _paloncha Samasthan and the same was claimed by the non_schedule people who are residing in the jurisdiction of V Scheduled of Constitution in Writ Petition No.t56gg of 2O1l and Writ petirion No. 19085 of 20L3 and the same was dismissed by t],e co_ordinate bench of this Court. The said order was uphel( in Writ Appeats No. 743 and 744 of 2014, dated OS-OZ -2023. Aggrieved by the same, non scheduled people approached the Hon,ble Supreme Court by way of the SLp. No 20490 of 2023 and SLp. Civil. No. 2734tof 2o23 but no stay was granted in view of the concurrent findings given by this High Court which is squarely applicablJfor this case. Mere clerical mistakes have been takern placc and the same are curable defecrs without considering the same, the writ petitioners cannot appro:rch this Court. 6. Heard Sri p Vishnuvardhan Reddy, l"r.i.d counsel for petitioners; learned Government pleader for Social Welfare l, 9 ancl Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel fr r Resoondents 1 2 to 14 7 It, is to be noted, V Schedule is thc tri sic structure o1'the Constitution and the sanre was uphelcl lr,t the Hon,ble A;rcx Court in a plethora of cases including Sannatr- us State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), a land mark judgment to protect the rights of thc Scheduled Trible people in the 3rrrrs;diction of V Sclrerlule to Constitution of India. As state,l by the 3,a re'sJ>ondent in his counter, the two villages in (lu rsrtion ,Gudur, ancl Ayodhvapur' were incluclbd in the 1950 Or cler, howevcr, witlr spelling ntistakes. For ,Gudur,, it is wron1,l.z spelled as 'Goarur' (SI. No. 68) and for ,Ayodhyapur,, as ,R i(lhiapur, (Sl. No. 69). The District Collector, Warangal, addres;ed the letter d;rlt rl l7.l1.lg78 for correction of wrongly spel eC names of villages, pursuant to which proposals dated lg. !1.197g were sclr I to the Social Welfare Department. Bzrst ng olt ntcrc clerical/spelling ntistakes, which are curable defr:r:ts, it cannot bc sitid that trvo villages in question are not iqdrrdecl in thc I95O Order and no relief as sought for in this wrrr l)etition can bc giuc r r. t0

8. The cause of action has arisen in 1950. Petitioners under the guise of spelling mistakes in the Presidential Order, cannot now be permitted after lapse of 75 long years to agitate that the two villages in question are to bc treated as non- scheduled area villages. That apert, petitioners have not chosen to challenge Presidential Notification (Part-B States) Order 195O dated 07.12.1950 in this Writ Petition. Without challenging the said 195O Order, they are not entitled to pray for a declaration that 'Gudur' and 'Ayodhyapur' -,'revenue villages are non- Scheduled Areas. r'r I. As rightly stated by the 3'd respondent-District Collector, right from the Scheduled Area Declaration by the Union Government, the primitive Tribal Groups/Tribal Groups dwelling in this area are rest assured to dwell in their place without fear. Basing on the Scheduled A.ea co.tcefit, many developmental activities to the existing Tribat agglomerations have been taken up for Tribals as the villages are published as Scheduled Areas in the Presidential Ordcr 1950 aftgr extensive exercise made. Therefore, the rclief sought in this Writ Petition filed aftcr a lapse of 75 years that too without challenging the Presidentral Notification (Part B States) Order 195O dated

07.12.1950. cannot bc granted. The Writ petiticn is nit by delay :rnd laches. I O. I 1. The Wnt pctition is accordingly disnrissed. No costs_ Consequently, misccllancous Appiications, if any s lrall stanrl c]osed. SD/. C. DEEPIKA /sqrsTANr REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ "----- \lSECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 5 o. 7 o One CC to SRt P. VTSHNUVARDHANA REDDy, AJvo,;erte tOpUCI Two ccs to GP for Sociar werfare, High court for the ritate of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the jtate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to S C. for Grampanchayat tOpUCI Two ccs to GP for Panchayat Raj_andf,urar Deveropnrent, High court for the State of Telangana at Hldeiabad.-[OUT] One CC to Deputy Solicitor Generat of lndia [OpUC] one cc to SRt cHIKKSDU PRABHAKAR, Advocate tc pucl Two CD Copies To MP BS I i HiIGH COURT DATED:2011112025 ORDER WP.No.S126 of 2025 1HE S 14 ( .J 3R t E r-1 , ? 5 tlou 65 t l?ts" .\: -nr * ^1IC .il (s f- DISMISSING THE WftT PETITION WITH,CIUT COSTS 2fl l,l {