Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pandi Ramulu vs Agent To Government, E.G. District, ... on 25 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD783, 1998(1)ALT179
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner states that he is the owner of the land to the extent of Ac. 1.00 in Survey No.31 of Sarbavaram village. He submits that, in addition to this land he has one more piece of land measuring Ac. 1.00 and in all he has two acres of land. The village Sarbavaram where the land situate is part of Scheduled area, therefore the Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 is applicable to the area The petitioner states that, the land was originally purchased by one Tirupaihi Ramaiah from a Tribal in the year 1927 after obtaining permission from the then Agent to the Government. Thereafter, part of the land to the extent of Ac. 1.25 cents was sold by the said Tirupathi Ramaiah to Chetlapalli people in the year 1940. From them the present petitioner purchased the land in the year 1964. The remaining piece of land to the extent of Ac. 1.00 was taken in mortgage by the petitioner in the year 1964 but was purchased by him in the year 1970. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land and he states that he was in possession of the land before amendment to Regulation No. 1 of 1959 came into force. He submits that his possession of the land was well protected because he possessed the land before the amendment was made to Regulationl of 1959. He further states that under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 the Settlement Officer granted him Ryotwari patta in respect of the lands in question on 25th January, 1976. Thereafter, one Madaka Suranna filed a complaint under the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 in LTRP No. 314/76 for restoration of land to him on the ground that the petitioner was anon-tribal and he could not continue with the possession of the lands. The 2nd respondent by his order dated 28th January, 1977 made on the complaint of said Madaka Suranna, dismissed the complaint holding that petitioner's possession was valid. The petitioner further states that this order has become final and no appeal was taken against the said order. In the meantime, third respondent filed another complaint in respect of the same land in LTRP No.3/84 on the ground that petitioner was anon-tribal and therefore his possession was hit under Regulation 1 of 1959. The 2nd respondent by an order dated 25-6-1984 in LTRP No.3/84 passed orders granting decree of ejectment against the petitioner and directed , the property to be restored to the Government alongwith the standing crops. The writ petitioner challenged this order in CMA No.2/85. The 1 st respondent by order dated 29-4-1989 dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner was non-tribal and transaction between a non-tribal to a non-tribal was prohibited. He further directed that the land had to be transferred back to the Vendor, but he also happened to be a non-tribal, therefore he directed the land to be restored to the Government. Both the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 have been challenged in this writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parlies and I have gone through the record. No counter has been filed.
3. The main argument is that the scheduled land was originally purchased by one Tirupathi Ramaiah after obtaining permission on 1-10-1927 from the Special Assistant Agent. Therefore, according to the petitioner the transaction was governed by Section 7 of Regulation 2 of 1970 and a patta was granted to the petitioner on 25th January, 1976. Said order was not challenged and the order has become final between the parties as no appeal was preferred against that order of 25th January, 1976. On the other hand, the respondents had argued that Tirupaihi Ramaiah has purchased the land in 1927 after seeking permission, but he sold the land to the present petitioner in 1970 and that is a second transaction, therefore this case was subject to Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970.
4. This argument could perhaps be considered had not the Settlement Officer passed an order on 25th January, 1976 and granted patta to the petitioner. Section 7 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryolwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 lays down that, every ryot in the Scheduled areas to which the Regulation applies shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all cultivable lands and Section 9 of the Regulation lays down that the Settlement Officer shall inquire into the nature and history of all lands in respect of which ryotwari patta is claimed and decide it- Whenever an order under Section 9 is passed, if somebody feels aggrieved of the order, he has a remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 9 under which an appeal can be filed. Once the matter is settled under Section 7, the only course open to the claimant against such settlement is to file an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 9. No fresh proceedings can be initiated after an order under Section 7 has been passed. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad on this count. My view is fortified further by judgment of this Court in N. Appa Rao v. Agency Divisional Officer, 1988 (2) APLJ 9 (SNRC), which is a brief judgment by K. Ramaswamy, J., in which His Lordship has held that patta granted under Section 7( 1) read with Section 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970 was final and the possession held by a person under that patta cannot be termed to be unlawful offending Section 3 of Regulation 1 of 1959.
5. For these reasons, I allow this writ petition and quash the orders impugned in the writ petition. No order as to costs.