Telangana High Court
Bejjuri Lingu Bai, Adilabad Dist. 2 ... vs Project Officer, Itda, Adilabad 2 ... on 11 July, 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.3396 OF 2007
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 31.01.2007 in Case No.A4/LTR/03/1999 of the 1st respondent, confirming the order dated 20.11.1998 passed by the 2nd respondent in Case No.TWA2/860/87, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to direct the respondents to restore the possession of the land admeasuring Ac.4.03 gts. in Survey No.29/B of Pardi-B Village, Boath Mandal, Adilabad District.
2. The land to an extent of Ac.4.03 cents in Survey No.29/B of Pardi-B Village, Boath Mandal of Adilabad District situated in an agency area. The provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short 'Regulation 1 of 1959') as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 are applicable to the land in the notified scheduled areas. Basing on the pahani patrika for the year 1969-1970, wherein the name of one Rathod Prema (3rd respondent) S/o. Balu is found as 'pattedar' in Column No.11 and the name of one Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy is found as 'cultivator' in Column No.16 relating to Survey No.29/B admeasuring Ac.4.03 gts. situated at Pardi-B Village of Boath Mandal. As the lands are covered by the provisions of Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, a notice in Form-E was issued by the 2nd respondent in Case 2 No.TWA2/860/87. The notice was served on the petitioner therein i.e. Rathod Prema, but could not be served on the respondent therein i.e. Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy. At the time of hearing, when the respondent was absent, the case was adjourned to 05.06.1989 and issued notice to the respondent and the respondent appeared on 25.06.1987. Both the parties were present. The pattedar - Rathod Prema S/o.Balu deposed that he never sold the land to Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy, but he forcibly occupied the land about 15 years back and since then he has been in possession of the land and enjoying the fruits of the land. However, he has not executed any document for the subject land in favour of Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy.
Sri Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy filed counter before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) stating that in the year 1963, Rathod Prema sold the land to him under an agreement of sale for a sale consideration of Rs.3,000/- and he was put in possession of the land. Since then, he was enjoying the property. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Boath Mandal has furnished the copies of pahanies for the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1989-90. On verification of the pahanies furnished by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the pahanies filed by the respondent, the cultivation of the land is as follows:
Year Pattedar Cultivator
1962-63 Prema s/o Balu Prema s/o Balu
1963-64 -do- -do-
3
Bejjur Ram Reddy s/o
1964-65 -do-
Sayanna
1968-69 -do- Bejjuri Lachma Reddy
1969-70 -do- -do-
1989-90 -do- ---
1990-91 -do- ---
The respondent also submitted revenue receipts on
18.05.1998 i.e. photostat copies of LR receipts for the years 1974-75, 1976-77 and 1978-79 and printed receipt for 1994- 95 dated 04.01.1995. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Boath vide reference No.B/215/92, dated 12.07.1994, reported that he has visited the Pardi-B Village and enquired with village elders, pattedar and purchaser and on his enquiry, it was revealed that Rathod Prema S/o.Balu, who was the pattedar of S.No.29/B to an extent of Ac.4.03 cents situated at Pardi-B village, sold the land to Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy S/o.Sayanna for total consideration of Rs.3,000/-. The pattedar also stated that he has received the entire amount and having no objection if the above land was transferred to B.Lakshma Reddy S/o.Sayanna. Further, the Mandal Revenue Officer in his letter mentioned that Bajjuri Lakshma Reddy stated that he has purchased the land in the year 1963-64 from Rathod Prema and the entire sale consideration was paid to the pattedar and having continuous possession over the land from the date of purchase.
On verification of the case file, it revealed that the purchaser in his statement dated 26.06.1987 stated that he had purchased the land in the year 1964 through an agreement of sale and a case in File No.TWA/3161/79 has 4 been initiated earlier in the Special Deputy Collector's Office and disposed of the same in his favour. He filed the land revenue receipts on 18.05.1998 for the years 1974-75, 1976- 77, 1978-79 and 1994-95. The original authority - Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Adilabad at Utnoor finally passed order of ejectment of the non-tribal respondent i.e. Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy S/o.Sayanna from the suit land bearing No.29/B admeasuring Ac.4.03 cents situated at Pardi-B Village of Boath Mandal and the same may be restored to the tribal (Lambada) petitioner and report compliance, stating that the petitioner is firm in his statement, whereas the respondent in the beginning deposed that he has purchased the land in the year 1964, later stated that he purchased the land in the year 1963-64 and finally stated that he purchased the land on 20.05.1963. The sale deed dated 20.05.1963 shows that the pattedar Rathod Prema signed it in Hindi by writing his name as 'Pama', whereas in his deposition dated 18.11.1998, he has stated that he does not know writing and cannot sign but can only put his thumb impression. There is a variation in his statements and also the ordinary sale deed. The respondent - Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy could not prove that he was in possession of the land in the year 1963-64, 1989-90 and 1990-91 and not even submitted the land revenue receipts to show his possession over the land during 1963-64 as the crucial date of LTR case into existence on 01.12.1963, and 5 holding that the transaction is hit by the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by the Regulation 1 of 1970. Against which, Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy preferred an appeal under Section 3(3)(a)(ii) of the Regulation 1 of 1959. But, the appellate authority, without considering the documentary evidence and grounds of appeal in its proper perspective, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the original authority and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Boath Mandal to handover the physical possession of the suit land to the tribal respondent within 15 days. Against which, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the land to an extent of Ac.4.03 cents in Survey No.29/B of Pardi-B Village, Boath Mandal is situated in an agency area, but the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 are not applicable to the land in question for the reason that Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy (husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3) purchased the land on 20.05.1963 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.3,000/- and the same was confirmed in the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer after examining the village elders and since then, he had been in possession of the land till his death. In support of the contention of Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy, he filed land revenue receipts before the original authority and as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, he had been in 6 possession of the land. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent, Rathod Prema, belongs to Lambada community and both the 3rd respondent and Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy are non-tribals as on the date of execution of sale deed and Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy came into possession of the land, whereas Regulation 1 of 1970 came into force prohibiting the transfer of land between non-tribals with effect from 03.02.1970. It is further contended that 'Sugalis (Lambadas)' community was subsequently notified through Scheduled Tribe Order, 1976 as tribes and before that the third respondent was not a tribe and even otherwise, Regulation 1 of 1970 is not applicable as the transaction took place much earlier to the Regulation 1 of 1970 and even on the date of initiation of proceedings, Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy as well as the 3rd respondent belonged to non-tribals and there is no prohibition of transfer of land between non-tribals under Regulation 1 of 1959 and only after amendment of Regulation 1 of 1970, the transfer even between non-tribals is prohibited. It is further contended that the transaction took place on 20.05.1963 between non-tribals, and hence, it is not hit by the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 and thereafter, in view of the Regulation 1 of 1970, the transaction between the non- tribals could not be declared as null and void with retrospective effect. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddy and others 7 Vs. Collector, Adilabad District and others1 and also relied on the decision of this Court in Ambati Obi Reddy Vs. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlement & Land Records, Hyderabad and others2, wherein it is held that regulations have no retrospective effect.
The learned counsel further contended that the 3rd respondent belongs to Lambada community and the same is not notified as Scheduled Tribe initially. The caste 'Sugalis (Lambadas)' was included under Constitution of Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950 in the year 1976. In view of the same, the transaction which took place in the year 1963 is between non-tribals and there is no prohibition of transfer between non-tribals in the Regulation 1 of 1959. As on the date of application of Regulation 1 of 1970, Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy and the 3rd respondent are non-tribals, but it has no retrospective operation. Hence, the orders passed by the original and appellate authorities in Case No.TWA2/860/87 dated 20.11.1980 and Case No.A4/LTR/03/1999 dated 31.01.2008, are illegal and contrary to the provisions of Regulations 1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970, and they are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, would contend that the transaction is said to be taken place on 20.05.1963 by 1 AIR 1982 A.P. 1 (F.B.) 2 1996(2) An.W.R. 516 8 ordinary sale deed, but the petitioners failed to produce any land revenue receipts to the effect that the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3 came into possession of the land before 01.12.1963 as on that date the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 was made applicable to the Telangana region and even otherwise, the transaction is between the non-tribals and the petitioners could not able to establish the possession of Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy over the land by producing land revenue receipts from the year 1963 onwards and also pahanies in support of their contentions. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy purchased the land in the year 1963 and since then he was in possession of the land and the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 and Regulation 1 of 1970 are not applicable, could not be countenanced. Further, it is argued that there is no illegality in passing the impugned orders.
5. Sri Nazeer Khan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, submits that the third respondent never sold the subject land. He further argued that the 3rd respondent has no knowledge of writing and hence the original and appellate authorities, basing on the evidence, held that the contention of Bejjuri Lakshman Reddy that he purchased the land in the year 1963 for sale consideration of Rs.3,000/- and since then he was in possession of the land, could not be believed as he has not filed any documents, land receipts and pahanies in support of his contention. He relied on the decisions of this 9 Court reported in M.Suresh Bhargava and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others3, Vemana Somalamma and another Vs. Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari and others4 and Vaddi Veeraiah Vs. The Agent to Government, Khammam and others5 and argued that the subject transfer is hit by Regulations 1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others6 and contended that the lands are originally belong to the tribals in the agency area by taking to the objects of Regulations 1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970 and this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot record a different finding to that of the original and appellate authorities except on the point of jurisdictional error or a grave error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in considered view of this Court, this Court finds that the land admeasuring Ac.4.03 cents in Survey No.29/B of Pardi-B Village, Boath Mandal of Adilabad District, which is situated in an agency area, is covered by Regulations 1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970. But, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 purchased the land in the year 1963 3 1989(2) ALT 516 4 1993(1) ALT 409 (F.B.) 5 1996(1) ALD 107 (D.B.) 6 (2004) 10 S.C.C. 65 10 before application of the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 i.e. 01.12.1963. The land transaction took place on 20.05.1963 much before the application of Regulation 1 of 1959. Even otherwise, the prohibition is only between the tribal and non-tribal under Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959, whereas Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy is a non-tribal and the 3rd respondent is 'Lambada' by caste, which caste was not notified as 'tribe' under the Constitution of Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950 as the same was notified as 'tribe' in the year 1976 only. Hence, the transfer is between the non- tribals as the transfer took place much before Regulation 1 of 1959 made applicable to the Telangana region.
7. Further, Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy filed revenue receipts pertaining to the years 1974-75, 1976-77 and 1978-79 and the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report that the said Lakshma Reddy was in possession of the land. Hence, the transaction is between non-tribals and not hit by Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959 which is made applicable to the Telangana region as on 01.12.1963 and the amended Regulation 1 of 1970 was came into force on 03.02.1970 and it has no retrospective effect for the transaction which has taken place on 20.05.1963 and Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy was put in possession of the land as per the evidence available on record. Admittedly, Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy was in possession of the land during the period 1964-65 and 1968-69. Hence, the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1970 is not 11 applicable and it cannot be said that the transaction which took place in the year 1963 and followed by possession, is illegal under the provisions of the Regulations 1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970.
8. Considering the possession of Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy in pursuance of the sale transaction which took place in the year 1963 coupled with the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, it can be safely concluded that even if the transaction took place after coming into force of the Regulation 1 of 1959 in the Telangana region on 01.12.1963, when the transaction is between the non-tribals and that Bejjuri Lakshma Reddy and the 3rd respondent are non-tribals and that the transaction is not hit by the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959. The prohibition of transfer of land between the non- tribals came into force by Regulation 1 of 1970 with effect from 03.02.1970 and the said regulation cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect for the transaction which had taken place in the year 1963. By any stretch of imagination and basing on the evidence on record, it can only be said that the transaction had taken place beforfe coming into force of Regulation 1 of 1970.
9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders of the original and appellate authorities are contrary to the provisions of Regulations 1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970 and they are liable to be set aside.
12
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the 1st respondent dated 20.11.1980 passed in Case No.TWA2/860/87 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.01.2007 passed in Case No.A4/LTR/03/1999. No order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO 11-07-2018 anr 13 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3396 OF 2007 11-07-2018 anr