Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kunja Ramudu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 October, 2025
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010106332019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4761 OF 2019 AND 4764 OF 2019
WRIT PETITION NO: 4761 OF 2019
Between:
Kunja Ramudu, S/o. Late Govinda Rao, Aged 46 years, Occ: cultivation,
Caste ST, R/o. Buddulavarigudem Village, Ramannagudem Post
Bottaygudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Principal Secretary to Govt, Tribal Welfare Department (TW.LTR)
(Revisional Authority) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.
3. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.
4. The Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare) Polavaram, West
Godavari District.
5. Galem Appa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, Aged about Major, R/o.
Vedanthapuram, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
...Respondents
' /
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the Records pertaining to orders of
the 2"*^ respondent herein vide G.O.Ms.No. 45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR)
Department, dated 15.02.2019 under which the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner was dismissed by confirming the orders dated 18.04.2015 in SRA
No. 2/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to the Government, West Godavari at
Eluru who reversed the orders dated 09.05.2006 in S.R. No. 11/2006, on the
file of the court of the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR), K.R. Puram as
illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice
and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be
pleased to pass an interim suspension of G.O.Ms.No. 45, Social Welfare
(TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 issued by the 2^^ respondent during
the pendency of above writ petition in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
Between:
Galem Appa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, Aged about Major, R/o. Vedanthapuram,
Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
...Petltloner/5"' Respondent
AND
1. Kunja Ramudu, S/o. Late Govinda Rao, Aged 46 years, Occ; cultivation.
Caste ST, R/o. Buddulavarigudem Village, Ramannagudem Post,
Bottaygudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
f:
.. .Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Principal Secretary to Govt, Tribal Welfare Department (TW.LTR)
(Revisional Authority) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.
4. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.
5. The Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare) Polavaram, West
Godavari District.
...Respondents/Respondents
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
vacate the Interim Order dt. Dt.09.04.2019 passed in I.A.No. I of 20.19 in W.P.
No. 4761 of 2019 in the interests of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. JYOTHI PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 :GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA
APHC010106^72019
ifii
[i]
WRIT PETITION NO: 4764 OF 2019
Between:
Kunja Ramudu, S/o. Late Govinda Rao, Aged- 46 years, Occ: cultivation.
Caste
ST, R/o. Buddulavarigudem Village, Ramannagudem Post
Bottaygudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Principal Secretary to Govt, Tribal Welfare Department
(TW.LTR)(Revisional Authority) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
3. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.
4. The Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare) Polavaram, West
Godavari District.
5. Kanumuri Vijaya Narsimha Raju, S/o. Ramakrishna Raju, Aged about -
Major, R/o. Dharmaraopet, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari
District.
6. Kanumuri Viswanatha Raju, S/o. Vijaya Narasimha Raju, Aged 50
years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Dharmaraopet Village, Koyyalagudem
Mandal, West Godavari District.
(R6 is impleaded as per Courts Order dt.15.10.2025 in I.A.No.2 of
2019)
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the Records pertaining to orders of
the 2"*^ respondent herein vide G.O.Ms.No. 51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR)
Department, dated 15.02.2019 under which the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner was dismissed by confirming the orders dated 18.04.2015 in SRA
No. 1/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to the Government, West Godavari at
Eluru who reversed the orders dated 09.05.2006 in S.R. No. 12/2006, on the
file of the court of the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR), K.R. Puram as
S?f'
f/ ■
■y \-7
Hlegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice
and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
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
pass an interim suspension of G.O.Ms.No. 51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR)
Department, dated 15.02.2019 issued by the 2"^ respondent during the
pendency of above writ petition in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 3 OF 2019
Between:
Kanumuri Viswanatha Raju, S/o. Vijaya Narasimha Raju, Aged 50 years
Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Dharmaraopet Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal West
Godavari District.
...Implead Petitioner/Proposed 6*'^ Respondent
AND
1. Kunja Ramudu, S/o. Late Govinda Rao, Aged- 46 years, Occ:
cultivation. Caste
ST, R/o. Buddulavarigudem Village,
Ramannagudem Post, Bottaygudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Principal Secretary to Govt, Tribal Welfare Department
(TW.LTR)(Revislonal Authority) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
4. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.
5. The Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare) Polavaram, West
Godavari District.
77
r
6. Kanumuri Vijaya Narsimha Raju, S/o. Ramakrishna Raju, Aged about -
50 Years, R/o. Dharmaraopet, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari
District.
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
vacate the Interim Order dt. 09.04.2019 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2019 in W.P
No. 4764 of 2019 in the interests of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Between:
1. The Principal Secretary to Govt Tribal Welfare Department
(TW.LTR)(Revisional Authority) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.
3. The Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare) Polavaram, West
Godavari District.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
1. Kunja Ramudu, S/o. Late Govinda Rao, Aged- 46 years, Occ;
cultivation Caste ST, R/o.
Buddulavarigudem Village
Ramannagudem Post, Bottaygudem Mandal, West Godavari District.
... Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
3. Kanumuri Vijaya Narsimha Raju, S/o. Ramakrishna Raju, Aged about -
Major, R/o. Dharmaraopet, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari
District.
... Respondents/Respondents
(R2 & R3 are not necessary parties in this petition)
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
vacate the interim order dt: 09-04-2019 passed in IA.No.1/2019 in
WP.No.4764/2019 and dismiss the writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. JYOTHI PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 :GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA
Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : Mrs. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI
The Court made the following Common order:
/T
APHC010106332019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NOs: 4761/2019 & 4764/2019
W.P.No.4761 of 2019
Between:
1.KUNJA RAMUDU,, S/0. LATE GOVINDA RAO, AGED 46
YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, CASTE ST, R/0.
BUDDULAVARIGUDEM VILLAGE RAMANNAGUDEM
POST, BOTTAYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
ANDHRA PRADESH.
2.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT, TRIBAL
WELFARE DEPARTMENT (TW.LTR)(REVISIONAL
AUTHORITY) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
AT ELURU.
4.THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE)
POLAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. .
5.GALEM APPA RAO, , S/0. SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT
MAJOR, R/0. VEDANTHAPURAM, KOYYALAGUDEM
MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari
SRK,J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
2
calling for the Records pertaining to orders of the 2nd respondent
dated" I's
nfnit
(™.LTR) Department,
which the Revision Petition filed by the
pet^ioner was dismissed by confirming the orders dated
18.04.2015 in SRA No. 2/2010/F2 on the of the^Tnt to he
Eluru who reversed me <t?ders
dated 09.0po06 in S.R. No. 11/2006, on the file of
the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR), K.R. Puram as illeoal
the court of
arbitrary, contrary to law and against the principles of natural jusLe
fn
10 p3SS the interest of justi4 Ind
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC
crrcum^ances stated in the affidavit filed in swor?of'm1 petition®
rO 'q' pass an interim suspension of
- (™ LTR) Department, dated
15.02.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent during the pendency of
above writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying
that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition
Dt hhiM may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dt'
01^10 IK . 20.19 in W.P. No. 4761 of
arthirHnn'hteT °'''®'' °''''®r or orders
as this Hon ble Court may 'deem tit and proper in the circumstance
of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KJYOTH I PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
3.SITA RAM CHAPARLA
3
SRK, J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
3
W.P.No.4764 of 2019
Between:
1.KUNJA RAMUDU,, S/0. LATE GOVINDA RAO, AGED- 46
YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, CASTE ST, R/0.
BUDDULAVARIGUDEM VILLAGE, RAMANNAGUDEM
POST, BOTTAYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
WELFARE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT, TRIBAL
WELFARE DEPARTMENT (TW.LTR)(REVISIONAL
AUTHORITY) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
AT ELURU.
4.THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE)
POLAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5.KANUMURI VIJAYA NARSIMHA RAJU, S/0.
RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, AGED ABOUT - MAJOR, R/0.
DHARMARAOPET, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari
calling for the Records pertaining to orders of the 2nd respondent
herein vide G.O.Ms.No. 51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department,
dated 15.02.2019 under which the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner was dismissed by confirming the orders dated
18.04.2015 in SRA No. 1/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to the
Government, West Godavari at Eluru who reversed the orders
dated 09.05.2006 in S.R. No. 12/2006, on the file of the court of the
Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR), K.R. Puram as illegal,
SRK,J v'l
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
4
anrt """'T'° '''® principles of natural justice
and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice
lA NO: 1 OF 201Q
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition
G P'f3s®ri to pass an interim suspension of
(™ I-TR) Department, dated
15.02.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent during the pendency of
mrther*'? I? pass such Other
further order or orders as this
proper in the circumstances of the
Hon'ble Court
case.
may deem fit and
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
thrHrh'crn m support of the petition
be imnie'nd^H^ '' be pleased To permit the Implead petitioner to
No Ttm of 2nil I R®sP°Prient in writ petition
® pending miscellaneous petitions therein
in the interest of justice and pass
lA NO: 3 OF 2Q1Q
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition
nq na pleased To vacate the Interim Order dt'
09.042019 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2019 in W.P No. 4764 of 2019 i' in
the interests of justice and pass ziu i» i
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section
circumstances stated in the affidavit fitedffi sup^onhl petition®
CM 2n'?q iriay be pleased to vacate the interim order^dt-
thtrpS;Vpass "^°'^ " WP.No.4764/2019 and dJsl
09-
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KJYOTHI PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
The Court made the following:
>7?' ..
\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NOs: 4761 OF 2019 & 4764 OF 2019
COMMO N ORDER:
Since the parties and the contentions and rival contentions
are one and the same and further, the point involved in both the
Writ Petitions is also one and the same, these Writ Petitions are
disposed of, by this Common Order.
2.
The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.4761 of 2019 and
4764 of 2019 are one and the same and he filed these Writ
Petitions, seeking following reliefs;
Prayer in W.P.No.4761 of 2019:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for
the records pertaining to orders of 2""^ respondent herein vide
G.O.Ms.No.45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated
15.02.2019 under which, the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner, was dismissed by confirming the orders dated
18.04.2015 in SRA No.2/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to
the Government, West Godavari at Eluru, who reversed the
Orders, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.No.11/2006 on the file of
the Court of the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR),
K.R.Puram, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and
consequently set-aside the same in the interest of justice...''
\
SRK, J
W..PNos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
2
Prayer in W.P.No.4764 of ?n>iQ-
...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for
the records pertaining to orders of 2^^ respondent herein vide
G.O.Ms.No.51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated
15.02.2019 under which, the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner, was dismissed by confirming the orders dated
18.04.2015 in SRA No. 1/2010/F2 on the file of the Agent to
the Government, West Godavari at Eluru, who reversed the
Orders, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.No. 12/2006 on the file of
the Court of the Special Deputy Collector (TW.LTR),
K.R.Puram, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and
consequently set-aside the same in the interest of justice...
3.
Contents of the affidavits filed by the Writ Petitioner iin
support of the Writ Petitions, in brief, are that, petitioner belonged
to Scheduled Tribe (Koya) community and he is the absolute owner
of lands in an extent of Ac.6.03 cents in R.S.No. 1629/1 and Ac.4.00
cents in R.S.No.1629/2 situated at Bothayagudem village of West
Godavari District; that the said lands are his ancestral property; that
as the petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe, he made complaints
before the Special Deputy Collector, K.R.Puram contending that 5'"
respondent in both Writ Petitions, who are non-tribal, were in
possession and enjoyment of petitioner's land, in contravention of
Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land
SRK, J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
3
Transfer Regulation (Regulation 1/69 as amended by Regulation
1/70) (for brevity 'the APSALT Regulation').
(b) The complaints were registered as S.R.No.12/2006 in
respect of land in an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in R.S.No. 1629/2 and
S.R.No.11/2006 pertains to land in an extent of Ac.6.03 cents in
R.S.No. 1629/1 of Bottayagudem village. The Special Deputy
Collector, K.R.Puram conducted inquiry and vide Order, dated
09.05.2006 allowed the complaints.
(c) Aggrieved by the orders, dated 09.05.2006 in
S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006 passed by the Special Deputy
Collector (TW), K.R.Puram, 5^^ respondent in Writ Petitions filed
appeal vide SRA No.2/2010/F2 and SRA No.1/2010/F2 on the file
of the Court of the Agent to the Government and District Collector,
West Godavari at Eluru; that the said appeals were allowed vide
Order, dated 18.04.2015, setting-aside the orders of the Special
Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, dated 09.05.2006;
that aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority,
petitioner filed Revision Petition before 2"^^ respondent and 2 nd
respondent, without considering the detailed orders passed by the
Primary Authority, dismissed the Revision Petitions vide
G.O.I\/ls.No.45 Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated
'v ■
SRK,J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
4
15.02.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.4761 of 2019) and
G.O.Ms.No.51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated
15.02.2019 (challenged in W.P.No.4764 of 2019).
(d) The petitioner was in continuous possession and
enjoyment of the subject property till the subject land was acquired
under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Package for Polavaram
Project. Though there is a categorical finding by the Special Deputy
Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram that 5*' respondent in Writ
Petitions, who are non-tribals were in possession and enjoyment of
the schedule land situated in an agency area and it is a
contravention under Section 3 (1) of the LTR. There i
IS no
correlation with old Patta No.115 of Buddulavarigudem,
H/o.Buttaigudem village with the present schedule mentioned lands
i.e. R.S.Nos.1629/1 and 1629/2, and it can be said that 5*'^
respondent in Writ Petitions have no permission/order to purchase
the land situated in an agency area.
(e) Pending Revision Petitions before 2 nd respondent,
when the Land Acquisition Authorities tried to disburse
compensation amount to 5*^ respondent in Writ Petitions, petitioner
filed Writ Petition No. 1717 of 2017 before this Court and vide
Order, dated 11.07.2018, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition,
SRK, J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
5
directing the authorities not to pay the compensation either to the
petitioner or to the respondent No.5 in Writ Petitions, till the
disposal of Revision Petitions. Under the guise of impugned Order,
respondent No.5 in Writ Petitions are making hectic efforts to get
the compensation amount in respect of schedule property and if 5**^
respondent in Writ Petitions are allowed to receive the
compensation amount payable on the acquisition, the very purpose
of filing these Writ Petitions would be defeated rendering
irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petitions.
4.
This Court vide Order, dated 09.04.2019 in I.A.No.1 of
2019 in W.P.No.4761 of 2019 and I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4764
of 2019 granted interim Order, suspending the G.O.Ms.No.45,
Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department dated 15.02.2019
(challenged in W.P.No.4761 of 2019) and G.O.Ms.No.51, Social
Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 (challenged in
W.P.No.4764of2019).
5.
The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, who is
respondent No.4 in both Writ Petitions filed counter-affidavit on its
behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, denying the
contents of the Writ Petition and contending inter alia that the
Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram made
SRK,J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
6 \
complaints to the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram,
stating that the schedule property is under possession and
enjoyment of non-tribal i.e. respondent No.5 in both Writ Petitions
and sought for ejectment; that the said complaints were numbered
as S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006 in the Court of the Special
Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram.
(b) Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.4761 of 2019 appeared
before the Special Deputy Collector and deposed that the land in
R.S.No.1629/1 measuring an extent of Ac.6.03 cents in
Buttaigudem village was originally belonged to tribal people viz.
Kummara Kannayya and others; that the said land was purchased
by Daggu Gangamma from the said tribals by obtaining permission
from the then Special Assistant Agent Kovvur vide
L.Dis.C.No.l/SR of 47 and later, she sold the said property to one
Kanumuri Ramakrishnam Raju and Narasimha Raju; that
Narasimha Raju sold the land to one Alluri Venkata Krishnam Raju
in the year 1966 and later, 5'^ respondent in W.P.No.4761 of 2019
and his brothers
viz. Nageswara Rao and Satyanarayana
purchased the same in the year 1968 through a Registered Sale
Deed No.891 of 1968 and during their family partition, the schedule
land fell to the share of 5*'' respondent in W.P.No.4761 of 2019.
m ■
SRK.J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
7
(c) In respect of S.R.No.12/2006, 5"^ respondent appeared
before the Court of the Special Deputy Collector and stated that his
father viz. Kanumuri Ramakrishnam Raju purchased the schedule
land from one Daggu Gangamma in the year 1950 and the said
Gangamma purchased the same from the tribal people viz.
Kummara Kannayya, Venkanna, Gangulu with the permission from
the then Special Assistant Agent, Kovvur vide L.Dis.No.1/SR/47
and the schedule land fell to 5^^ respondent's share in W.P.No.4764
of 209 share through partition among their brothers.
(d) The then Special Deputy Collector observed that the
schedule mentioned lands and the land covered by permission
granted by the then Special Assistant Agent to the Government,
Kovvur are not one and the same and concluded that the lands
were acquired from the tribals at a certain point of time and
disposed of, by allowing the complaints of the Special Deputy
Tahsildar, ejecting 5'^ respondent in both Writ Petitions vide Order,
dated 09.05.2006.
(e) Aggrieved by the Order, dated 09.05.2006 in
S.R.Nos.11/2006 and MIIQQQ, 5'^ respondent in Writ Petitions filed
appeals before 3^*^ respondent and the said appeals were allowed
vide Order, dated 18.04.2015 in SRA No.2/2010/F2 against
m
\
SRK, J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
8
S.R.No.11/2006 and SRA No.1/2010/F2 against S.R.No. 12/2006
and set-aside the Order, dated 09.05.2006 passed by the Special
Deputy Collector. Aggrieved by the orders passed in the said
appeals, petitioner filed Revision Petitions before the Government,
but, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority were confirmed
holding that there is no violation of Regulation, and the sale deeds
and possession of 5*^ respondent in Writ Petitions, is lawful. The
petitioner failed to produce any document to establish that he is
tribe and has been i
in possession over the schedule property; that
the schedule lands
are zeroyath lands and the sale transactions
occurred prior to the commencement of the APSALT Regulation
and the petitioner had not proved his possession and enjoyment
over the schedule land before the Revisional Authority. Hence, it is
prayed to vacate the Interim Order, dated 09.04.2019 passed by
this Court and consequently, dismiss the Writ Petitions.
6.
Respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.4761 of 2019 filed
counter-affidavit denying the contents of the affidavit filed
accompanying Writ Petition. Respondent No.5 reiterated the
contents of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4 with
regard to acquiring the schedule property; that the schedule
property fell to his share at the time of family partition and has been
■ r
I
SRK, J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
9
in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the same till date.
There is no contravention of Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT
Regulation. The Regulation 1 of 1970 in the Andhra Area came
into force with effect from 03.02.1970 and the sale transaction
occurred in the year 1968, therefore, the provisions of above
statute do not apply to the said lands.
(b) The petitioner did not file single document to prove that
nd
he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 2
respondent rightly dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner and there is no illegality and contravention of the
provisions of the aforesaid statute. Therefore, S**" respondent has
got right to claim compensation as a legitimate owner of the
schedule land. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the Interim Order
dated 09.04.2019 passed by this Court and consequently, prays to
dismiss the Writ Petition No.4761 of 2019.
7. One Kanumuri Viswanatha Raju, son of 5*^ respondent
in Writ Petition No.4764 of 2019, who was impleaded as
respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.4764 of 2019, filed affidavit
denying the right, title and ownership of petitioner over the
schedule lands. He too reiterated the contents of counter-affida vit
filed by 4*'" respondent, with regard to manner of acquiring the
SRK,J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
10
schedule property by 5^^ respondent in Writ Petitions. Earlier, the
Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), K.R.Puram complained before the
Special Deputy Collector (TW) alleging that 6* respondent and his
family members were in possession of the schedule lands in
contravention of Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT Regulation and
subsequently, the then Special Deputy Collector (TW) conducted
inquiry and passed Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/1978
holding that there is no contravention of provisions of the aforesaid
statute and no appeal was preferred against the said order. The
petitioner did not file single document to prove that he is the rightful
owner of the schedule property and without any right, title, interest
possession, filed frivolous cases including the present Writ
or
Petitions. There is no illegality or contravention of the provisions of
the aforesaid statute. Though respondent No.5 died on 02.07.2013,
petitioner, without showing respondent No.6 as party to the
proceedings, wantonly showed respondent No.5 as party, with a
malafide intention to get wrongful gain. There are no merits in the
Writ Petition and the same
is liable to be dismissed with exemplary
costs. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the Interim Order, dated
09.04.2019 and consequently prays to dismiss the Writ Petition
No.4764 of 2019.
1
SRK,J
W.P.Nos.4761 S 4764 of 2019
0^. 11
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent
Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 in
W.P.No.4761 of 2019 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 in
W.P.No.4764 of 2019 and perused the entire material available on
record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
5*'^ respondent did not obtain permission from the concerned
authority to purchase the land situated in the agency area, as
property in old patta No.115 of Buddulavarigudem,
H/o.Buttaigudem village with the present schedule property in
R.S.No. 1629/1 is not one and the same. Learned counsel for the
petitioner would further contend that the Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Tribal Welfare) categorically gave finding that 5*^ respondent is a
non-tribal and he was in possession and enjoyment of the land in
an agency area, but, in the said impugned Order the same was not
appreciated either by the Appellate Authority or the Revisional
Authority.
10. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare
representing respondent Nos.2 to 4 would contend that the
schedule lands were purchased from the tribals by obtaining
SRK,J
W.P.NOS.4761 & 4764 of2ai9
12
permission from the then Special Assistant Agent, Kovvur and later,
they fell to the shares of 5^^ respondent in both Writ Petitions.
Learned counsel would further contend that there is no violation of
the Regulation and the sale deeds and possession of 5^"
respondent in Writ Petitions, is lawful. The petitioner failed to
produce any document to establish that he is scheduled tribe and
has been in possession over the schedule property.
11.
Learned counsel for respondent No.6 in Writ Petition
No.4764 of 2019 would contend that the then Special Deputy
Collector (TW) conducted inquiry and passed Order, dated
27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/1978 which was numbered basing on the
complaint of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), K.R.Puram and
that there is no contravention of provisions of Section 3 (2) (a) of
the APSALT Regulation.
12.
A perusal of the Orders, dated 09.05.2006 in
i
S.R.Nos.l 1/2006 and 12/2006 passed by the Special Deputy
Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram, it was observed that the
schedule lands and the lands covered by permission granted by the
then Special Assistant Agent to the Government, Kovvur are not
one and the same and held that acquiring the schedule lands from
tribals is in violation of the APSALT Regulation. Aggrieved of the
I
SRK,J
W P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
13
said orders, respondent No.5 in both Writ Petitions preferred
S.R.A.Nos.1/2010/ F2 and 2/2010/F2. A perusal of the Orders,
dated 18.04.2015 in the aforesaid appeals passed by the Agent to
the Government and District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru,
goes to show that it was held that all the sale transactions in
respect of the schedule lands are valid transactions and they are
not hit by Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT Regulation and thereby,
Orders, dated 09.05.2006 in S.R.Nos.11/2006 and 12/2006 passed
by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram, were
set-aside.
13.
A perusal of material on record further goes to show
that petitioner preferred Revision Petitions against the orders
passed by the Agent to the Government and District Collector,
West Godavari, before 2"^^ respondent, wherein, 2"^^ respondent
vide G.G.Ms.No.45, Social Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated
15.02.2019 and G.D.Ms.No.51, Social Welfare (TW.LTR)
Department, dated 15.02.2019, upheld the orders of the Appellate
Authority.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
there is a statutory bar on alienation of immovable property situated
in the agency area and simply because acquisition of the schedule
SRK, J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
14
lands by S'" respondent in Writ Petitions by way of sale was held to
be in order and legal, that circumstance itself would not come in the
way of the statutory authority, as the petitioner being a tribal in the
schedule area, his right over the schedule lands cannot be
defeated. He placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid
down in Vemula Bhaskar Rao and another V. Government of
Andhra Pradesh and others^ wherein it was held as thus:
(Paragraph No. 12)
"The Regulations were enacted through a special
mechanism in exercise of powers under Schedule-V of the
Constitution of India. Framers of the Constitution have evolved a
spectal procedure for protection of the rights of the tribals in the
scheduled areas. Such rights cannot be permitted to be defeated
by having recourse to the hyper-technicatities. It Is apt to refer
here that apart from the prohibition contained under Section 3 of
the Regulations, the alleged transfer in favour of Subbaiah w/as
invalid on account of the prohibition contained under Section 38-
E of the Act. It is rather unfortunate that it took three rounds of
litigation spread over three generations for the 5' respondent to
realize the land. Correspondingly, the family was denied the
benefit of the enjoyment of the land for such a long time. The
matter cannot brook any further delay.
2009 (2) ALD 500.
K
SRK, J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
15
Further, in G.Nageswararao @ China Nageswararao v.
Government of A.P. and others^, wherein, it was held as thus;
(Paragraph No. 10)
"Section 11 CPC enshrines the doctrine of res judicata.
Rule 8 of A.P. Agency Laws 1924 is also couched in similar
terms incorporating therein the doctrine of res judicata. One of
the essential postulates for the applicability of the doctrine is that
'subject-matter of issue in the subsequent proceedings had been
directly and substantially in issue in the former proceedings and
such issue had been heard and finally decided therein'. The
basis on which the doctrine is founded is rooted in public policy,
as it is apparently unjust and unreasonable to permit the same
issue to be litigated afresh between the same parties or their
privies. It is not sufficient if the two issues in the two proceedings
are similar, but they must be the same. Physical identity of the
subject-matter alone does not make the doctrine applicable.
There shall be identity of the subject-matter in the juridical sense
as well. The plea of res judicata cannot succeed unless the
question of law or issue of fact arising in the subsequent
proceeding was the subject-matter of an issue heard and finally
decided in the former proceeding between the same parties or
their privies."
Further, in N.Durga Rao and another v. Special Deputy
Collector (Tribal Welfare), Kota Ramachandrapuram, W.G.
District and others, wherein it was held as thus:
"Orders passed in the first proceedings initiated under
regulations will not operate as res judicata if the later
^2007 (6) ALD621 (DB).
SRK,J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
16
proceedings were initiated by third party or by the same party on
the basis of any further material and in the present case there is
no fresh or new material warranting a contrary view than the one
taken earlier. "
Further,
in Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare),
Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District and others V. Datia
Venkapathi Raju and others^ wherein it was held as thus:
(Paragraph No. 12)
"The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
Regulation make it very clear that there is a statutory bar on
alienation of immovable property situate in the agency tracts by a
person, whether or not such person is a member of Scheduled
Tribe. The bar contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
Regulation operates in present!. Simply because in the earlier
proceedings acquisition of the schedule lands by the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner by way of transfer was held to be in
order and legal, that circumstances itself would not come in the
way of the statutory authority, like the 1st appellant, exercising
the power conferred upon him under sub-section (2) of Section 3
of the Regulations, if he subsequently comes to know that the 1st
respondent, after such acquisition, in turn, transferred the
schedule lands in favour of third parties in breach of the bar
contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Regulations.''
15.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 in Writ
Petition No.4761 of 2019 and respondent No.6 in Writ Petition
'2003(1)ALD 386 (DB).
SRK,J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
tv. 17
No.4764 of 2019 placed strong reliance on propositions of law laid
down in Mallina Venkatarao v. District Collector, West Godavari
District, Eluru and others'*, N.Durga Rao and another v. Special
Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Kota Ramachandrapuram
W.G.District and others^ Payam Ankamma v. Special Deputy
Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District
and others® and Chinthalapati Ramalinga Raju v. District
Collector, Eluru, W.G.District and another^ and contend that
when once the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner before 2 nd
respondent, to review the order of the Appellate Authority was
rejected, the petitioner is not empowered to seek the relief by way
of Writ petitions.
16.
Apparently, a perusal of material on record goes to
show that earlier, vide Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/78
passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare. Eluru on
the complaint made by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, examined the
respondent No.5 in both Writ Petitions, wherein, respondent No.5 in
W.P.No.4761 of 2019, deposed that he along with his two brothers
purchased the schedule land from one Alluri Venkata Krishnamraju
"2005 see OnLineAP 434.
^2003 see OnLineAP 363.
® 2009 see Online AP 839.
^ 2000 see online AP 27.
SRK,J
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
18 %
on 27.06.1968 under a Registered Sale Deed and in partition of the
properties, S'" respondent got the schedule land towards his share.
It was further deposed by 5 respondent in W.P.No.4761 of 2019,
that one Alluri Venkata Krishnamraju purchased the schedule land
from one Kanumuri Narasimharaju on 30.09.1963 under a
Registered Sale Deed and he got exhibited those Registered Sale
Deeds in S.R.No.39/78 as Exs,B4 and 85. It was further deposed
that father of 5'" respondent in W.P.No.4764 of 2019 viz. Kanumuri
Ramakrishnam Raju purchased the schedule land from one Daggu
Gangamma in the year 1950 and the said Gangamma purchased
the same from the tribal people viz. Kummara Kannayya
Venkanna, Gangulu with the permission from the then Special
Assistant Agent, Kovvur vide L.Dis.No.1/SR/47.
17.
A perusal of the documents that were exhibited in
S.R.No.39/78 goes to show that the schedule land in question was
under the enjoyment of tribals by name Kunja China Gangulu and
his sons and they sold it to Kummara Dulappa on 29.06.1936 and
the sons of Kummara Dulappa sold the said land on 10.02.1947 to
one Daggu Gangamma, a non-tribal, after obtaining permission
from the Assistant Agent, Kovvur vide L.Dis.C.No.l/SR of 47, dated
01.01.1947 and later, she sold the said land on 18.12.1950 under
!Y ■ 7
SRK,J
W.P.NoS-4761 & 4764 of 2019
19
Registered Sale Deed, dated 18.12.1950 to Kanumuri
Ramakrishnamraju and Narasimharaju, who are non-tribals, and
from then onwards, the schedule lands were in occupation of non-
tribals continuously. Indeed, the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal
Welfare vide Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/78 observed
that all the transactions are valid transactions and held that they
are not hit by Section 3 (2) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled
Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation I
of 1970 and thereby, dismissed the petition. Surprisingly, again
S.R.Nos. 11/2006 and 12/2006 were numbered against respondent
No.5 in Writ Petitions on the pretext that the schedule area is in
possession and enjoyment of non-tribals in contravention of
Section 3 (1) of the APSALT Regulation. Indeed, lucid explanation
was
given by the then Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare,
Eluru in its Order, dated 27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/78 as to how the
petitioner is not entitled to the schedule property. When once the
matter was already adjudicated by an authority that acquiring the
schedule land by respondent No.5 in both Writ Petitions does not
hit by Section 3 (2) (a) of the APSALT Regulation, reviewing the
same by this Court in Writ Petitions does not arise. Furthermore,
the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the Order, dated
SRK,J
i
W.P.Nos.4761 & 4764 of 2019
20
27.09.1978 in S.R.No.39/78 passed by the Special Deputy 1
Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru and the said order is still subsisting,
Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are not tenable
and this Court is of the firm opinion that there are no merits in the
Writ Petitions and they are deserved to be dismissed.
18.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed
confirming the Orders of 2''" respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.45 , Social
Welfare (TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 (challenged i in
W.P.No.4761 of 2019) and G.O.Ms.No.51 Social Welfare
(TW.LTR) Department, dated 15.02.2019 (challenged in
W.P.No.4764 of 2019). Consequently, the interim Orders dated
09.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4761 of 2019
and I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4764 of 2019, stand vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall also stand closed.
Sd/- K. TATA RAn
//TRUE COPY// deputy REGISTRAR
To, SECTION OFFICER
1.
2.
One CC to Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, Advocate fOPUC]
Two CCs to
OP for Social Welfare,^ High Court of Andhra Pradesh
[OUT]
3. One CC to Sri Sita Ram
4. OneCCto Mrs. Chaparla, Advocate fOPUC]
Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate fOPUC]
5. Two CD Copies
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED:15/10/2025
COMMON ORDER
WP Nos. 4761 and 4764 OF 2019 g{ 0 3 NOV 2025 '^NQjrrentSectioiix'J^ DISMISSING THE W.Ps WITHOUT COSTS