Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is the case of the petitioners that while the grandfather of the 1st petitioner was shown as pattadar of the subject land, there is no evidence on record to show that Sri. Perika Bhemanna, a Non-tribal was in possession and enjoyment of the land prior to Regulation, 1959 being made applicable to the subject area; and that the said Perika Bhemanna being a non- tribal could not have sold the land to the father of the 3rd respondent during the year 1967-68.
6. Petitioners further contend that even Perika Bhemanna could not have claimed of being in possession and enjoyment of the subject land prior to 01.12.1963 as prior to Andhra Pradesh scheduled area Land Transfer Regulation 1959 being made applicable to the Scheduled Areas of Adilabad District, the transactions of sale of land in subject area was governed by the provisions of Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1 of 1917 (Act of 1917), which mandated permission to be obtained from the Agent to Government; and that with the Regulation 1959 being made applicable w.e.f. 01.12.1963, sanction of Government or consent of Agent is required to be obtained under Section 3(1) of the Regulation for sale / purchase of the land from a tribal to non-tribal.

17. Thus, the petitioners contend that the 1st respondent while setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent did not also take into consideration the fact that the possession of the subject property by Perika Bheemanna itself is in contravention of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation and thus, the subsequent sale of the subject land by Perika Bheemanna under the alleged ordinary sale deed in favour of the father of the 3rd respondent would not become valid.

18. Petitioners contend that if only the ordinary sale deed purported to have been executed in favour of the father of 3rd respondent existed at the relevant point of time, the father of the 3rd respondent would not have failed to place the same before the 2nd respondent in the suo moto proceedings initiated in the year 1983 or even at the time when he was being evicted from the subject land subsequent to dismissal of the Writ Petition vide W.P. No.7490 of 1984 on 17.05.1988.

7 2012 (1) ALT 102 (DB) 8 1989 (2) (HC) 232 9 (1988) 3 SCC 433

23. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order had also taken note of the fact that the 1st petitioner's father had deposed that the subject land belongs to his grandfather late Hanmanth Rao; that Perika Bheemanna was cultivating the above land; and that the name of Perika Bheemanna was mutated in the revenue records and pahani for the year 1955-56 are factors which supports the order of 1st respondent.

28. A perusal of the order of the 1st respondent would show that it is based on the premise that the father of the 3rd respondent having established his claim of the subject land having been purchased by him from Perika Bheemanna under ordinary sale deed dated 24.08.1967, and the said transaction as not being hit by the provisions of Section 3 (1) of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1970. However, the 1st respondent authority did not take into consideration as to whether Perika Bheemanna who himself is a non-tribal could have claimed the subject land as having been purchased by him from the grandfather of the 1st petitioner, who is a tribal during the subsistence of Regulation 1 of1959 or prior thereto under the Act of 1917.