Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. The counsel for the Petitioners Sri MMM Srinivas would submit that the authority under Regulation 1 of 1970 could not have cancelled the Ryotwari Pattas issued by the Settlement Officer under Regulation 2 of 1970, more so in the absence of any rival claim by any tribal. The counsel for the Petitioners pointed out the overriding effect of Section 15 of Regulation 2 of 1970 and relied upon the Judgments of this Court Pandi Ramulu v. Agent to Government, E.G. District, Kakinada and Others1 and Sirigana Venkateswarlu v. Agent to the Government and District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and Others2 in support of his contentions.

22. The only reason for cancelling the Pattas was that the Settlement Officer should have protected the rights of the tribals and that the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended in 1970 have overriding effect. The reasoning is perverse and outside the scope of Regulations.

23. Thirdly, Section 3(2) (a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959 contemplates initiation of action for eviction on three scenarios i.e (i) on application by anyone interested (ii) On information given in writing by a public servant or (iii) suo motu decree ejectment against any person in possession in violation of Section 3(1) (a). In the present case, the initiation of action was pursuant to an application filed by an association by name Sri Vinayaka Girijana Seva Sangham and the question is whether the association would come within the definition of "anyone interested" to maintain an application for eviction. In the opinion of this court, the term "anyone interested"

would mean only those persons having an interest in the land in question and not those who do not claim any right or interest in the land in question. Sri Vinayaka Girijana Seva Sangham does not claim any right in the land in question and therefore, the very initiation of proceedings is de hors the Section 3(2) (a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959.

24. Fourthly, the question whether the authority under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 could cancel the Ryotwari Pattas issued under A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 1 of 1970 fell for consideration before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Pandi Ramulu's case (1st cited) and this Court in the said Judgment held that the Ryotwari patta granted under A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 could be challenged only by way of appeal and not under A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959. The said was followed in Sirigana Venkateswarlu's case (2nd cited). The paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 are extracted below;

"5. It is well settled that once patta granted u/s 7of Regulation 2 of 1970 has become final, the same cannot be set aside by resorting to the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970.
6. In Pandi Ramulu Vs. Agent to Government, E.G. District, Kakinada and Others,wherein also patta granted in the year 1976 has become final as the same was not challenged by way of any appeal, it was held as follows:
"Section 7 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari 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 Sec. 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 u/s 7, the only course open to the claimant against such settlement is to file an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section