Mandava Rama Krishna And Seven Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Eight Others on 17 April, 2014
8. I have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions.
8.1 In the considered view of this Court, the issue involved for adjudication
in the writ petition is squarely covered by an order, dated 17.04.2014, passed by
a learned single Judge of this Court in WP.Nos.15688 of 2011 and 19085 of
2013 (between Mandava Rama Krishna and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and others)1. In the said writ petitions, the challenge was to the action of the
official respondents in treating Mangapet Mandal, Warangal District, as a
Scheduled Area and in reserving all offices of Gram Panchayats therein in
favour of STs. The said challenge was made on the grounds that such
treatment of Mangapet Mandal of Warangal District as a Scheduled Area is
arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 21 and para 6(1) of Schedule V to the
Constitution of India and as contrary to the judgment of this Court in
WP.No.1413 of 1973, dated 30.11.1973. The facts of the above said writ
petitions reflect that the Nizam of Hyderabad State, by notification dated
21.04.1950, divided Hyderabad State into 16 districts; thereby all the 23 villages,
which were in Mangapet Mandal were deleted from Palvoncha taluq and
included in Mulug taluq; thereafter the President of India issued notification,
dated 07.12.1950 under Para 6(1) of the V Schedule to the Constitution
excluding 23 villages in Mulug Taluq from the list of Scheduled Areas; all the
23 villages in Mangapet Mandal were in Mulug taluq on the date of issuance of
1
2014(5) ALD 181
7 MSRM, J
WP.No.43687 _2017
the Presidential Order, dated 07.12.1950; while specifying other villages in
Mulug Taluq as Scheduled Areas, 23 villages were not notified as such in the
Presidential Order. This Court in the said writ petition noted and considered
the contention that the notification, dated 21.04.1950, is limited to the
determination of the boundaries of the respective taluqs and identification of
villages included in it and that the mere fact that a particular set of villages were
removed from one taluq and merged with another would not result in their
cessation as notified tribal areas. In the background of facts and contentions,
this Court held as follows: