Telangana High Court
Sri. V. Seetharama Reddy, S/O. Late ... vs The State Of Telangana on 10 September, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND
wp_18622_2017
NBK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.35276 and 36277 of 2016
AND
WRIT PETITION No.18622 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
W.P. Nos. 35276 of 2016 and 36277 of 2016 have been filed challenging the orders passed in the Revision Petition vide G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated 07.10.2016. W.P. No. 18622 of 2017 has been filed challenging the Panchanama dated 27.10.2016, conducted by Respondent No. 5- Tahsildar for resumption of land to the Government pursuant to the orders passed in the Revision Petition, i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated 07.10.2016.
In view of commonality of issue, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. For reference and discussion, the averments in W.P.No.35276 of 2016 are taken.
2. The Petitioner challengesthe order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the 1st respondent-Revision Authority vide G.O.Ms.No. 43, Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department. This order allowed the appeals filed by unofficial Respondents, thereby setting aside the order passed in CMA No. 110/2003 dated 28.07.2007 by Respondent No. 2 and dismissing the Petitioner's revision with respect to land admeasuring Acs. 2-23 gts in Sy.No. 161/2, situated at Chunchupalli village, Kothagudem Mandal. The impugned order further directed the said land to be taken into government custody, which the Petitioner contends is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
2.1 The Petitioner, an agriculturist, purchased the land in Sy.No. 161/2 (Acs. 2-23 gts) through an unregistered sale deed dated 24.04.1969 2 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J from Mr. Katakam Koti Reddy, a non-tribal pattadar. This transaction was supported by Pahanies from 1955-56 to 1957-58 reflecting the vendor's name, and the Petitioner has been in uninterrupted cultivation since the purchase. In 1984, land acquisition proceedings were initiated (Ref:
A4/7105 of 76 dated 23.07.1974 and 23.07.1984), including dispossession. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 13182 of 1984 before this Court, and this Court quashed the acquisition notification on 23.01.1986 due to delayed publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
2.2 In 2012, regularization proceedings commenced based on a report dated 18.12.2012 by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), Bhadrachalam. Notice under Form-E was served in accordance with Rule 10 of the A.P. (SA) LTR Rules, 1969. The Petitioner submitted substantial documentary evidence, including the Sale Agreement of 1969, land revenue receipts for multiple years, Pass Book, Pahani extracts from 1968 to 2013, and relevant judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court, establishing that the transfer predated the Regulation's applicability (01.12.1963 / 03.02.1970). These documents confirmed continuous possession and clarified that the transaction was between non-tribals, hence outside the scope of the Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations.
2.3 LTR Case No. 355/85/KGM was initiated based on a petition dated 18.07.1985 by Late Bhukya Lachu regarding lands in Sy.Nos. 161/1, 162/2, and 163/4--excluding Sy.No. 161/2. However, in 1993, a second petition by the same individual led to LTR Case No. 654/93/KGM, including Sy.No. 161/2. Despite contradictions between the two petitions, the cases were clubbed without procedural fairness or cross-examination opportunity, violating principles of natural justice.3
wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J 2.4 Respondent No. 3, while passing the impugned order on 25.03.1996, failed to summon relevant records or substantiate claims with documentary proof. The order was based on assumptions and unsupported oral statements by the original petitioner, ignoring settled principles of evidence. Additionally, the order incorrectly mentioned land extents-- listing only Acs. 5-11 gts instead of the actual 9-00 acres involved in the two cases--and unlawfully included Sy.No. 161/A and 161/2 without issuing Form-E notices for those lands.
2.5 Respondent No. 2, acting as the appellate authority, upheld the order dated 25.03.1996 in a perfunctory manner through CMA No. 110/2003 dated 28.07.2007, without addressing these substantial procedural and factual irregularities. Neither Respondents No. 2 nor 3 considered the extensive documentary evidence substantiating the Petitioner's possession since 1969 or explained why such evidence was disregarded.
2.6 The Petitioner asserts that the findings of all Respondents are erroneous and unsupported by law. Specifically, Respondent No. 1 wrongly concluded that the land was government property and accepted the possession of Bhukya Hari Singh during 1977-79 as patta land holder, contradicting revenue records. Moreover, the observation that the sale occurred post-Regulation based on registration date (23.07.1977) is unsustainable, as the Petitioner's possession was recorded from 1969 onward.
2.7 The Petitioner further states that Respondents had no jurisdiction under Section 3(2)(a) of Regulation 1 of 1970 to order eviction, especially in absence of any tribal interest in the land. The Lambada community, to which the opposing party belongs, was notified as 4 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J Scheduled Tribe only on 27.07.1977 via G.O.Ms.No. 838 dated 15.12.1979, which postdates the transaction and possession. Interim protection orders were granted throughout the proceedings, including by the Hon'ble High Court, restraining dispossession. The current attempt to evict the Petitioner is thus without lawful basis.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No. 4 (adopted by Respondents 1, 3, and 4) contending that the petitioner has misrepresented G.O.Ms.No.43, Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department dated 07.10.2016. Contrary to his assertion that the order directs the land to be taken into government custody, the G.O. clearly states that the land is to be restored to the legal heirs of Sri Bhukya Harisingh by vacating illegal encroachments, in accordance with Act 9 of 1977. The petitioner's claim of purchasing Ac. 2.23 gts in Sy.No. 161/2 via an unregistered sale deed dated 24.04.1969 from Sri Koti Reddy is not supported by the revenue records. As per the pahanis of 1960-61, 1962-63, and 1963-64, while Koti Reddy was recorded as pattadar, Bhukya Harisingh was shown as the cultivator.
3.1 It is contended that entries regarding possession do not confer legal title in scheduled areas. Under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act and relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, an unregistered sale deed does not create enforceable rights. This position was upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CRP No. 1987 of 1996, dated 10.08.1998.
3.2 Regarding the petitioner's reliance on W.P. No. 13182 of 1984, it is contended that the Hon'ble High Court did not grant any substantive relief in his favour; rather, it left open the possibility for the government to acquire the land by following due process. The petitioner also refers to orders in LTR Case No. 319/2012/KGM involving two non-
5wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J tribals. That order has no bearing on the present case, which has already been adjudicated in CMA No. 110/2003 by the Additional Agent to the Government, Bhadrachalam, whose decision is final and binding.
3.3 It is contended that the petitioner has made inconsistent statements. In CMA No. 110/2003, it was observed that he, along with Sri Lavudya Munya and Sri Dayaram Agarwal, jointly purchased the land in Sy.No. 161/2 through registered sale deed No. 1069/1977 dated 23.07.1977. However, in the present writ petition, he claims an unregistered purchase in 1969. This suppression is deliberate, as the 1977 transaction occurred after the commencement of Regulation 1/70, which prohibits such transfers of immovable property between non-tribals in scheduled areas. Hence, the transaction is void, and the petitioner cannot claim rights through it.
3.4 It is contended that the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Palvancha, after thorough examination of revenue records and statements, rightly passed orders in LTR Case Nos. 355/85/KGM and 654/94/KGM. The petitioner failed to establish title or legal possession, and his appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority and the government. These decisions were based on due consideration of all evidence.
3.5 It is also contended that the petitioner's claim of continuous possession since 1969 is false. Pursuant to the orders in the aforementioned LTR cases, the land was taken into government custody under Panchanama on 04.12.1996. Since then, the land has remained with the Revenue Department, and the petitioner has no lawful claim or possession.
6wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J
4. A counter affidavit, and also an additional counter affidavit, has been filed by respondent No.6-Bukya Ramulu, contending that it is settled principle that documents not filed before the original or appellate authorities cannot be relied upon in revision. The petitioner has now filed documents in I.A. No.1/2024 that were not presented in earlier proceedings, including LTR Case Nos. 355/1986/KGM and 654/1994/KGM (decided on 25.03.1996), and CMA No. 110/2003 (decided on 28.03.2007). These documents appear to be manipulated, altered using different inks, and are therefore disputed. Specifically, the TeensalPahanis for 1955-56 to 1957-58 filed by the petitioner omit the name of my grandfather, Sri Bhukya Harisingh, who was shown as the enjoyer in the official records obtained from the Deputy Tahsildar, Kothagudem. The 1959-60 Pahani also shows interpolations. From 1958- 59 to 1967-68, the petitioner failed to produce valid Pahanis, and from 1966-67 to 1967-68, the respondent No.6's grandfather's name was replaced with that of Katakam Koti Reddy. The Pahanis from 1969-70 and 1970-71 submitted by the petitioner are damaged or altered, as endorsed by revenue officials.
4.1 It is contended that the petitioner claims to have obtained documents through the RTI Act; however, official responses from the Tahsildar's office (letter dated 18.01.2023) confirm that no RTI applications were filed by him during 2018-2021 for the relevant survey numbers. Therefore, the authenticity of the documents is questionable, and they cannot be considered.
4.2 It is contended that the petitioner relies on a sada sale deed dated 24.04.1969, claiming purchase of Ac.2.23 gts in Sy.No.161/2 from Katakam Koti Reddy for Rs.20,600/-. This document, however, is only a 7 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J Xerox copy and was never submitted before any authority. Moreover, a registered sale deed (Document No.1069/1977 dated 23.07.1977) shows that the same land was purchased by three individuals--Dayaram Agarwal, Lavudiya Manya, and Vudumula Sita Rama Reddy--for the same consideration, with no mention of the alleged 1969 transaction. This indicates the 1969 deed is fabricated to circumvent Regulation 1 of 1970, which prohibits land transactions with non-tribals in Scheduled Areas.
4.3 Dayaram Agarwal and Lavudiya Manya, co-purchasers under the 1977 sale deed, testified in CMA No.110/2003 that Sita Rama Reddy had no possession over Sy.No.161/1, 161/2, or 161/4 and had relinquished his rights under the 1977 deed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was thus not maintainable.
4.4 It is contended that the petitioner also filed W.P. No. 13182/1984 against land acquisition proceedings (Ref.No.A/4/7105/76 dated 23.07.1984) concerning Sy.No.161/2 and 161/3. In that writ affidavit, he made no mention of either the 1969 sale deed or the 1977 deed, further suggesting these were fabricated later.
4.5 The government, in G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 07.10.2016, found no evidence that Katakam Koti Reddy was the pattadar of Sy.No.161/2. The petitioner failed to provide any supporting documentation regarding Reddy's title. The same G.O. recorded that my grandfather Bhukya Harisingh took a loan from the District Cooperative Central Bank, Khammam in 1978 by mortgaging land in Sy.No.161/A and 161/2 (Ac.3.04 gts), further confirming his possession and ownership. Additionally, Harisingh sold portions of the land to Bhukya Bheema (27 gts), Dailal (20 gts), and Badavat Hari Lal (1.14 gts), retaining only 0.02 8 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J gts in Sy.No.161/2--consistent with Pahanis from 1987 to 1995, which show the petitioner's name only against 0.02 gts.
5. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the additional counter affidavit of Respondent No.6. It is asserted in the reply that there was no tampering or fabrication of revenue records, and that he has filed certified copies of Pahanis for 1954-55 to 1957-58 for Sy. No.161/2, showing Katakam Koti Reddy as both pattadar (Col. No.11) and enjoyer (Col. No.16). It is contended that the land in Sy. No.161/2, admeasuring Ac.2.23 gts., was purchased by me from Katakam Koti Reddy on 24-04-1969 through an unregistered sale deed. These revenue records support Reddy's title and possession at the time of sale.
5.1 Allegations of tampering or different ink usage are false and baseless. It is contended that Pahani for 1959-60 filed by him was officially certified by the Deputy Tahsildar, Kothagudem. There was no interpolation, and the record shows Reddy's ownership and my possession, and any interpolation in Pahanis for the years 1964-65, 1966-67, 1967-68, and 1970-71 is denied. All certified copies were obtained from the Tahsildar (Respondent No.5), and no evidence of tampering was noted in the official records. It is contended that the 1969-70 Pahani on 20-12-2022, which shows Katakam Koti Reddy as owner and myself as possessor of the land in Sy. No.161/2, Ac.2.23 gts. Though part of the document was torn, the entries are certified and clear. This establishes my possession prior to the cutoff date (03-02-1970) of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1/1970, making the regulation inapplicable to my case. Therefore, Respondents 1 to 3 lacked authority to issue ejectment orders.
5.2 It is contended that the Pahanis from 1970-71 to 1995-96 consistently show Katakam Koti Reddy as pattadar and myself as enjoyer, 9 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J without any interpolations. In 1980-81 and 1983-84, this ownership and possession status remains unchanged. The 1987-88 Pahani shows my possession over Ac.2.11 gts, and 1995-96 Pahani confirms continued possession of the entire Ac.2.23 gts. Petitioner denies all allegations made in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the additional affidavit. Assertions that even "X" marks make the Pahanis invalid are misleading and contrary to clear entries in the revenue records. It is contended that the claim that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands is baseless. I have submitted all relevant and certified revenue records in support of my ownership and possession, including in earlier proceedings and the present Writ Petition.
5.3 It is contended that the Pahanis were obtained legally, and my possession has been continuous and uninterrupted since 1969. My vendor, Katakam Koti Reddy, held the land from 1954 to 1969. Respondent No.6 has not produced any valid revenue records to support his claim. Petitioner has also filed Katakam Koti Reddy's Kisan Credit Passbook, showing a loan taken on the property, disproving claims that the land was vacant. Cultivation continued until recent years. Petitioner asserts that he has filed all available records before the Primary Authorities, Revisional Authorities, and this Court, and denies the allegation of record tampering.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and the learned counsel for Respondents 6 to 9. Perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the writ affidavit, and also the reply affidavit filed in response to the additional counter affidavit of respondent No.6, would essentially contend that the impugned 10 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 07.10.2016 issued by Respondent No.1 (Revisional Authority) is wholly unsustainable in law and fact; that it is arbitrary, passed in violation of principles of natural justice, and without jurisdiction under Regulation 1 of 1970; that the direction to take possession of Ac.2.23 gts in Sy.No.161/2 into government custody is ex facie illegal.
7.1 It is contended that the transaction predates Regulation 1 of 1970; that the Petitioner purchased the land in Sy.No.161/2 (Acs.2.23 gts) under an unregistered sale deed dated 24.04.1969 from Katakam Koti Reddy, a non-tribal pattadar; that the transaction was completed prior to 01.12.1963 / 03.02.1970, the dates from which Regulation 1/70 became applicable; that therefore, the transfer is outside the purview of the Regulation, and the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate or entertain any LTR proceedings.
7.2 It is also contended that vendor's Ownership has been established through Pahanies and Pass Book; that the Certified copies of Pahanies from 1954-55 to 1957-58 and subsequent years clearly reflect Katakam Koti Reddy as the pattadar and enjoyer of Sy.No.161/2; that even the Kisan Credit Pass Book in the name of the vendor and evidence of bank loan sanction substantiate ownership and enjoyment.
7.3 It is also contended that the petitioner has been in uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the subject land since the date of purchase in 1969; that the Revenue records from 1969-70 onwards, including Pahanies up to 1995-96, show the Petitioner as the enjoyer and his vendor as the pattadar; that these certified revenue documents issued by the Tahsildar are official and have not been legally rebutted.
11wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J 7.4 It is also contended that the allegations of tampering, interpolation, or manipulation made by Respondent No.6 are unfounded, vague, and unsupported by any conclusive evidence; that all documents relied upon by the Petitioner are certified copies issued by competent revenue authorities, and the record itself does not bear any objection or tampering marks officially endorsed.
7.5 It is further contended that the Lambada community, to which Respondent No.6 belongs, was not notified as a Scheduled Tribe until 27.07.1977 under G.O.Ms.No.838; that the sale took place prior to 1970, and hence no tribal interest existed at the time; that consequently, Regulation 1/70 does not apply, and no eviction can be ordered under Section 3(2)(a) thereof.
7.6 It is further contended that the LTR Proceedings Based on Fabricated and Contradictory Claims; that the original LTR Case No.355/1985 initiated by Bhukya Lachu did not include Sy.No.161/2; that it was only in 1993 that Sy.No.161/2 was maliciously added in a second petition leading to LTR Case No.654/1994, without fresh notice or opportunity for the Petitioner to rebut; that the clubbing of these cases, without procedural safeguards like cross-examination, is contrary to natural justice. It is further contended that both the Special Deputy Collector and the Appellate Authority passed orders without referring to or analyzing the substantial documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner; that the findings were based solely on oral allegations and incorrect revenue assumptions, such as erroneous mention of land extents; that the unsubstantiated Claims by Respondent No.6 - No Revenue Title or Possession; that the respondent No.6's claim is entirely devoid of title or possession documents for Sy.No.161/2; that the alleged Lavani Patta in 12 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J favor of Bhukya Harsingh is neither substantiated nor reflected in official certified records; that the Pahanies cited by Respondent No.6 are either selectively interpreted or are contradicted by the official record filed by the Petitioner.
7.7 It is contended that the Petitioner's Rights are protected by Courts Since 1984; that the petitioner successfully challenged the land acquisition proceedings in W.P. No. 13182/1984, where this Hon'ble Court quashed the notification on 23.01.1986; that subsequent interim orders protecting possession have been in force throughout the LTR and revision proceedings.It is contended that the Petitioner has duly filed all available documents before the competent authorities and before this Hon'ble Court; that the Petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands, relying solely on certified public documents; that the allegation of suppression or forgery is baseless and motivated.
7.8 It is also contended that neither the Petitioner was given a fair opportunity to rebut the oral evidence relied on by the authorities, nor was any material proof provided by Respondent No.6 to substantiate his counter-claims; that the clubbing two unrelated LTR cases and acting upon a second, contradictory claim without fresh notice is procedurally unfair and unlawful.
8. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit of respondent No.4, contends that the writ petition is wholly devoid of merit, as the allegations made by the petitioner are false, misconceived, and legally untenable. It is contended that the petitioner has misinterpreted G.O. Ms. No.43, dated 07.10.2016, issued by the Tribal Welfare Department, by alleging that the Government ordered the land to be taken 13 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J into custody. On the contrary, the said G.O. clearly mandates restoration of the land to the legal heirs of Sri Bhukya Harisingh by vacating illegal encroachments, in accordance with the provisions of Act 1 of 1977.
8.1 The Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner's claim of purchase of the land through an unregistered sale deed in 1969 from Sri Koti Reddy cannot confer valid title, especially in Scheduled Areas, as per Section 17(1) of the Registration Act and relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has also held in CRP No.1987 of 1996 that unregistered sale deeds have no evidentiary value in such cases.
8.2 It is also highlighted that the claim of continuous possession since 1969 is factually incorrect, as the land was taken into Government custody on 04.12.1996 following due process under the orders of the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, in LTR Case Nos. 355/85/KGM and 654/94/KGM. These orders were upheld on appeal by the Additional Agent to the Government, making the issue res judicata. The Government Pleader also points out the petitioner's contradictory versions regarding the sale transaction, having alternately cited 1969 and 1977 as the date of purchase. The sale deed of 1977 is clearly after the commencement of Regulation 1 of 1970, which prohibits such transactions between non- tribals in Scheduled Areas, rendering the alleged sale void ab initio. It is emphasized that the judgment in LTR Case No. 319/2012/KGM, relied upon by the petitioner, is not binding as it was passed in a dispute between two non-tribals and the Government was not a party to it. Therefore, the Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal right or title over the subject land, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
14wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J
9. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, based on counter affidavit of respondent No.6, contends that the writ petition is abuse of process of law, aimed at reopening issues that have already been adjudicated by competent authorities, and is based entirely on manipulated and fabricated documents. It is asserted that the petitioner has sought to introduce documents in the present writ proceedings that were never produced before either the original authority--i.e., the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare in LTR Case Nos. 355/1986 and 654/1994--or before the appellate authority, namely, the Additional Agent to Government in CMA No.110/2003. The introduction of these documents at this belated stage, including tampered TeensalPahanis and altered revenue records, is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Hon'ble Court and circumvent the binding findings of the lower forums.
9.1 The counsel submits that the records relied upon by the petitioner--especially Pahanis from the years 1955 to 1995--are demonstrably manipulated. Notably, the name of Respondent No.6's grandfather, Sri Bhukya Harisingh, was originally recorded as the enjoyer of the subject land in Sy.No.161/2 across multiple years. However, later entries were interpolated in different inks and handwriting to insert the petitioner's name, as corroborated by official endorsements from the Deputy Tahsildar, Kothagudem. It is emphasized that for certain years, such as 1959-60 and 1967-68, the official records were materially altered--removing the name of Harisingh and inserting that of Katakam Koti Reddy or the petitioner--clearly establishing tampering.
9.2 It is further contended that the petitioner has relied on a so- called Sada Sale Deed dated 24.04.1969, which is only a Xerox copy and has never been presented in original before any authority or the court. This 15 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J alleged sale is not reflected in the subsequent Registered Sale Deed No.1069/1977 dated 23.07.1977, under which the same land was sold to three individuals, namely Dayaram Agarwal, Lavudiya Manya, and Vudumula Sita Rama Reddy--who includes the present petitioner. Importantly, this registered deed makes no reference to any earlier agreement or transaction from 1969, thereby casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim of prior purchase. The 1977 sale deed, being post-Regulation I of 1970, is void in law as it relates to land in a Scheduled Area being transferred to non-tribals.
9.3 Additionally, the counsel points to the deposition of co- purchasers Dayaram Agarwal and Lavudiya Manya before the appellate authority, wherein they categorically stated that the petitioner had relinquished any claim under the 1977 sale deed and had no possession over the land. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner's name does not appear as enjoyer of the land in Sy.No.161/2 from 1970 to 1980, and only a nominal extent of 0.02 guntas is shown under his name from 1987 to 1995, which further disproves any continuous possession.
9.4 It is also argued that the documents now relied upon by the petitioner, including the manipulated Pahanis and the alleged 1969 sale deed, are not only inadmissible but were never presented before the revisional authority or lower courts. As such, they cannot form the basis for challenging the validity of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 07.10.2016, which itself affirms that the petitioner failed to prove any legal or possessory rights and confirms the ancestral possession of Bhukya Harisingh, including his act of mortgaging the land in 1978 with the District Cooperative Central Bank. The G.O. further recognizes the 16 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J alienations made by Harisingh to other tribal individuals, and confirms the minimal residual holding of the petitioner.
10. This Court, vide interim order dated 27.10.2016, granted suspension of G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated 07.10.2016. Likewise, vide interim order dated 09.06.2017, it granted suspension of the impugned Panchanama challenged in W.P. No. 18622 of 2017.
11. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the material on record, it is pertinent to note that the impugned revision order records that the Additional Advocate General, after due verification of the records, observed that the transaction took place between a tribal and a non-tribal.
11.1 In the appeal before the Additional Agent to Government, a question arose as to whether the registered sale deeds between the parties were executed on 23.07.1977, which is after the commencement of Regulation 1/70. It was further noted that the land is situated in a Scheduled Area. The Lambadas were declared as Scheduled Tribes with effect from 27.07.1977 by Government Notification G.O. Ms. No. 838 dated 15.12.1977. Prior to that, they were treated as non-tribals.
12. It was also observed in the impugned order that in the present case, both parties were non-tribals, and therefore, the transaction in question is hit by Regulation 1/70 and is void. The impugned order further notes that the statements of V. Seetharama Reddy were inconsistent: before the 3rd respondent, he claimed no interest in Survey Nos. 161/A and 161/1 (Ac.0- 26 and Ac.2-02 guntas, respectively) and asserted a claim only in Survey No. 161/2 (Ac.2-23 guntas). He claimed possession and cultivation of the said land since 1970, stating that it was patta land and that Katakam Koti 17 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J Reddy was the pattadar. However, it remains unclear how the land came into the possession of Katakam Koti Reddy, from whom it is stated that V. Seetharama Reddy and two others purchased it via Sale Deed Nos. 1068/77 and 1069/77 dated 23.07.1977. The appellate and revisional authorities found that the petitioners failed to prove that the land was not assigned to Bhukya Hari Singh. The Pahani dated 24.08.2001 shows Bhukya Hari Singh as pattadar, with others as enjoyers of Survey No. 161/1. The Additional Agent to Government confirmed the lower authority's order and directed that the schedule land be taken into Government custody.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 14.07.1988 in P. Rami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, observed as follows:
"As a matter of fact it would be unreasonable and unfair to hold that the impugned provisions are unreasonable on this account. Surely it is not unreasonable to restore upto the 'tribals' what originally belonged to them out of which they were deprived as a result of exploitative invasion on the part of 'non-tribals'. In the first place should lessons not be drawn from past experience to plug the loop-holes and prevent future recourse to devices to flout the law? The community cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the competition between the 'tribals' and the 'non-tribals' partakes of the character of a race between a handicapped one-legged person and an able bodied twolegged person. True, transfer by 'non- tribals' to 'non-tribal would not diminish the pool. It would maintain status quo. But is it sufficient or fair enough to freeze the exploitative deprivation of the 'tribals' and thereby legalize and perpetuate the past-wrong instead of effacing the same? As a matter of fact it would be unjust, unfair and highly unreasonable merely to freeze the situation instead of reversing the injustice and 1 1988 (3) SCC 433 18 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J restoring the status-quo-ante. The provisions merely command that if a land holder voluntarily and on his own volition is desirous of alienating the land, he may do so only in a favour of a 'tribal'. It would be adding insult to injury to impose such a disability only on the tribals (the victims of oppression and exploitation themselves) and discriminate against them in this regard whilst leaving the 'non-tribals' to thrive on the fruits of their exploitation at the cost of 'tribals'. The 'non-tribal' economic exploiters cannot be installed on the pedestal of immunity and accorded a privileged treatment by permitting, them to transfer the lands and structures, if any, raised on such lands, to 'non-tribals' and make profits at the cost of the tribals. It would not only be tantamount to perpetuating the exploitation and injustice, it would tantamount to placing premium on the exploitation and injustice perpetrated by the non- tribals. Thus it would be the height of unreasonableness to impose the disability only on the tribals whilst leaving out the 'non-tribals. It would also be counter-productive to do so. It must also be emphasized that to freeze the pool of lands available to the 'tribals' at the present level is virtually to diminish the pool. There is no escape from this outcome because the realities of life being what they are with the population increase amongst the tribals remaining unfrozen, increase in their population will automatically diminish the size of their pool if the same is frozen. No unreasonableness therefore is involved in making the prohibition against transfer to 'non- tribals' applicable to both the 'tribal' as also to the non- tribal' owners in the scheduled area. As a matter of fact it would have been unreasonable to do otherwise. In the absence of protection, the economically stronger 'non-tribals' would in course of time devour all the available lands and wipe out the very identity of the tribals who cannot survive in the absence of the only source of livelihood they presently have. It is precisely for this reason that the Architects of the Constitution have with farsight and foresight provided in paragraph 5(2) of Fifth Schedule that the Governor may make regulations inter alia "prohibiting or restricting the transfer of land in the scheduled areas 19 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J notwithstanding any provision embodied in the Constitution elsewhere". And as has emerged from the foregoing discussion, it is unreasonable to restrict the prohibition against transfer to 'tribals'. It has to be made comprehensive enough to embrace the 'non-tribals' as well. With the improvement in the economic conditions of the 'tribals', there would not be much difficulty in finding 'tribal' purchasers. Besides, Section 3(1)(c) thoughtfully provides even for the contingency of not being able to find a 'tribal' willing or prepared to purchase the property. This provision obliges the State Government to acquire the property on payment of compensation as provided therein. One can envisage that some hardship would be occasioned to the owners to lands located in the scheduled areas. But such hardship would operate equally on the 'tribals' as well as the 'non-tribals'. Such hardship notwithstanding keeping in mind the larger perspective of the interest of the community in its entirety in the light of the foregoing discussion, the restrictions cannot be condemned as unreasonable. More so if the factor that the original acquisition by `non-tribals' from 'tribals' was polluted by the sins of exploitation committed by the non-tribals' is not ignored."
It is to be noted that the purport of Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations 1/1959, as amended by Land Transfer Regulations 1/1970, is to permit transfer of land between two tribals, and from a non-tribal to tribal; and to prohibit transfer of lands between two non-tribals and from a tribal to non-tribal. In effect, the Regulations 1/1970 stipulate that if a non- tribal happens to be in possession of land in Scheduled Areas (Agency Areas) and intends to transfer it after the Land Transfer Regulations have come into effect, he can transfer only in favour of a tribal; or, in the alternative, approach the Agent to Government with a proposal to surrender the land and seek appropriate compensation against the land. The Government can acquire the land from non-tribal by paying compensation, 20 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J and thereafter assign the land in favour of an eligible tribal. The Land Transfer Regulations 1/1959 (as amended by LTR 1/1970) does not stipulate any other mode of transfer other than the ones stipulated above, for effecting transfer of land by a non-tribal. In other words, in a land sale transaction in a Scheduled Area (Agency Areas), the status of vendor (seller) is immaterial and the status of vendee (buyer) should invariably be a "tribal" or "Government" (for re-allotment to an eligible tribal); and any transaction that does not comply with this stipulation becomes illegal.
14. In the instant writ petitions, the dispute primarily is with regard to nature of land and the status of individuals in the land transaction. Admittedly, the lands in Survey No.161/A (Ac.0-26 guntas), Survey No.161/1 (Ac.2-02 guntas), Survey No.161/2 (Ac.2-23 guntas) are Government lands located in Scheduled Area and they are assigned in favour of Bhukya Hari Singh who is a tribal. Further, it is to be noted that the sale deeds, registered or otherwise, relied on by the petitioners are of the year 1977 by the date of which the Regulation 1/1970 has come into force. And therefore, the very transfer of land between Katakam Koti Reddy and V. Seetharama Reddy (i.e., between non-tribals), or the sale of land by Bhukya Hari Singh in favour of Katakam Koti Reddy (from a tribal to a non-tribal) is impermissible in view of the land transfer regulations in LTR 1/1970, and also against the purport of the judgment of Hon' ble Supreme Court in P.Rami Reddy (supra). A perusal of the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 07.10.2016 would show that the 1st respondent in fact upheld the possession of land by the tribals and set aside the direction insofar as resumption of lands from tribals to the custody of Government.In that view of the matter, this Court does not find 21 wp_35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp_18622_2017 NBK, J any illegality in the impugned Order passed in the Revision Petition vide G.O.Ms.No.43.
15. The writ petitions are, accordingly,dismissed. No costs. The interim orders dated 27.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.35276 of 2016 and W.P.No.36277 of 2016, and the interim orders dated 09.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.18622 of 2017 shall stand vacated. It shall be open to the respondent-authorities to take appropriate action in respect of subject lands, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 10th September, 2025 ksm