Yeluri Venkata Ramana v. The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare),

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.28050 of 2011 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the respondents in initiating proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations (for short 'the Regulations') vide SDC LTR No.29 of 2011.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents. According to the petitioner, his mother late Yeluri Chellayamma owned an extent of 3.04 Hectares of land in Survey Nos.58/1 and 58/3 of Bhimudupakalu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District and she was granted a ryotwari patta by the Settlement Officer, Rajahmundry on 07.01.1975 and she passed away on 28.12.1986. It is averred in the writ affidavit that ever since the date of the death of her mother, the petitioner and his brothers have been in possession of the said land and cultivating the same and the said lands are situated in the scheduled area. It is further averred that the petitioner belongs to Kondareddy Community, a Scheduled Tribe. Earlier, on behalf of one Maddaluri Papayya, respondent No.2-Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare), Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District filed a complaint before respondent No.1-Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District under Section 3 of the

Regulations and respondent No.1 initiated enquiry under the Regulations and passed an order in LTRP No.265 of 1979, dated 31.07.1980, holding that there was no prohibited transfer. Now, by virtue of a notice, dated 05.09.2011, in SDC LTR No.29 of 2011, respondent No.1 once again initiated proceedings under Regulation 3 of the Regulations in respect of the subject land. While referring to the same, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier orders passed in LTRP No.265 of 1979, dated 31.07.1980, operate as res judicata and the respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to proceed once again, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Chintalapati Ramalinga Raju vs. District Collector, Eluru, W.G. District1. In the said judgment, the Division Bench in paragraph 2 held as under:

"The matter arises under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959(for short 'The Regulations'). The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the apprehension of the petitioner may not be real. But, it is evident from the proceedings dated 04.11.1998 in Rc.No.230 of 1997 (Supt.) of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttaigudem Mandal addressed to the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, K.R. Puram that action was sought to be taken against the petitioner on the ground that the judgment rendered by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare hitherto dated 5.09.1981 is doubtful. But, it is a well settled law that when a judgment is rendered under the Regulations, it becomes final and there is no review of the same. It is not disputed that the order dated 5.09.

1981 rejecting the application for eviction of the petitioner - appellant herein on the ground that unauthorized possession was rejected and the said order had become final. It is also not disputed by the learned Government Pleader, Social Welfare that there is no review provision in the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959. In fact, that legal position is well settled by series of judgments of this Court."

On the other hand, it is vehemently contended by the learned Government Pleader that the earlier order passed on 31.07.1980 would not operate as res judicata and respondent No.1 is perfectly justified in initiating the proceedings afresh. In the instant case also, since the earlier order, dated 31.07.1980, passed by respondent No.1 in LTRP No.265 of 1979 became final, in the considered opinion of this Court, respondent No.1 once again cannot be permitted to proceed with the enquiry in respect of the same lands.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 vide SDC LTR No.29 of 2011.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Dt: 01.12.2016.

kdl