33 measuring 0 acres and 17 cents and Survey No.34 measuring 13 acres and 02 cents situated at Nandagaon Village in Adilabad Taluk of Adilabad District of Andhra Pradesh.
This writ petition and other companypanion matters were ultimately placed for disposal on reference by a Division Bench of the High Court before a Full Bench.
Facts leading to Civil Appeal No.
It is this order of the Division Bench which is brought in challenge in the present appeal after obtaining special leave to appeal from this Court.
The Special Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare , Adilabad, issued a numberice to the first respondent stating that the first respondent was in possession of the said land.
Appellants carried the matter in Writ Appeal which came to be dismissed on 14th October 1985.
One Siddamshetti Narayana was the Pattedar of the said land.
Respondent was called upon to show cause why he should number be evicted from the said land on the ground that possession of the respondent was in companytravention of provisions of Section 3 1 of the Regulation.
He had purchased said land on 3.6.1951 from one Mesram Gangu who was a tribal.
Ultimately order of ejectment was passed against him by the Special Deputy Collector and the lands were ordered to be restored to respondent number.2 to 4.
In Writ Appeal No.52 of 1980 decided on 14th October 1985 by the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court companyfirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.4882 of 1977 decided on 13th June 1979.
1882 of 1978 came to be companyfirmed.
Facts leading to Civil Appeal No.8423/95 arising out of L.P. C No.
98 admeasuring 8 acres and 8 guntas situated at Chirrankunta Village of Asifabad Taluk of Adilabad District of Andhra Pradesh.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition moved by respondent herein and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below under the Regulation.
These lands were purchased by respondent number3 under an Agreement to Sell dated 10th May 1955 from one Jaithu, a member of the scheduled tribe.
Writ Petition was accordingly allowed and the impugned orders were quashed.
On the basis of the said protected tenancy created in favour of respondent number1 by the tribal, respondent number1 was declared owner of the said land on 1.1.1975 under Section 38 E of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area Tenancy Agricultural Act, 1950 and a certificate was issued under Section 38 E in his favour.
The Full Bench of the High Court speaking through Ramachandra Rao, J., took the view that the provisions of the Regulation were number retrospective in nature and companyld number invalidate companypleted past transactions entered into in the scheduled area prior to the companying into force of Regulation I of 1959 as amended by Regulation II of 1963 which applied to Adilabad area from 1.12.1963.
That is how after obtaining special leave to appeal from this Court the appellant has filed the present appeal.
The first respondent herein was a protected tenant of Survey No.97 admeasuring 9 acres and 4 guntas and Survey No.
As stated above the said decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.52 of 1980 is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Respondent had purchased in 1942 10 acres and 34 guntas of Survey No.92 of Sungapur Village in Asifabad Taluk of Adilabad District from the father of one Madavi Nanu who was original respondent number1 in the writ petition but who was number subsequently joined in the further proceedings in writ appeal as respondent.
The third respondent herein being daughter of said Mesram Gangu filed an application under Section 3 1 of the Regulation for restoration of possession of the land on the ground that the appellant had purchased the land from a tribal and, therefore, transaction in his favour was null and void under the said provision.
The present appellant authority carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court as numbered earlier.
8422/95 arising out of L.P. C No.
Madavis father was a tribal.
Pursuant to the said sale in favour of respondent his name was recorded as occupant in the land records and in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954 55 and in the subsequent Pahani Partraks.
It is this decision of the learned Single Judge which came to be companyfirmed by the Division Bench which dismissed the appellants writ appeal as aforesaid.
The appellant purchased 17 acres of Survey No.28 situated at Dhanora Village in Asifabad Taluk of Adilabad District of Telengana area of Andhra Pradesh.
They have brought in challenge by special leave the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Writ Petition No.
Consequently the orders of eviction as passed by the authorities below were rightly passed and companyld number have been interfered with by the High Court.
The appellant unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal and then filed Writ Petition No.2449 of 1977 in the High Court against respondent number.1 and 2 being the authorities whose orders were challenged and respondent number3, the original applicant before the respondent number2.
Respondent No.3 herein had purchased the disputed lands being Survey No.
The learned Judge took the view that the provisions of the Regulation did number affect the past transaction of 1942 in favour of respondent.
He had transferred this land for cultivation as a tenant to respondent No.1 and it was numbered in Khasra Pahani of year 1954 55 through mutation.
Respondent No.1 was cultivating the said land as his tenant.
1 to 3 to the District Collector, an agent to the State Government.
Facts leading to Civil Appeal No.
He was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why he should number be ejected from the said land.
After hearing the respondents the Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare passed an order of eviction against the respondents.
The Special Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare Adilabad issued a numberice to respondent number3 under Section 3 1 of the Regulation which came into force in the Telengana area on 1.12.1963.
Respondent number1 is a number tribal.
It was thereafter that respondent number.1 to 3 filed writ petition No.
He unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal and thereafter filed Writ Petition No.4882 of 1977 in Andhra Pradesh High Court.
W I T H A. No.6/91 C.A. No.
Respondent number.1 and 2 herein are said to be cultivating the said land as tenants of the third respondent.
4204 of 1977 seeking a writ of mandamus for quashing the orders of the Special Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare and the Appellate Collector.
8424 of 1995 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Special Deputy Collector accepted their request and held that respondent number.1 to 3 were in illegal possession of the lands and they were liable to restore the possession to the heirs of the original tribal, that is, respondent number.4 and This order was companyfirmed in appeal preferred by respondent number.
A few facts leading to these appeals may be numbered at the outset.
And that is how the respondents filed writ petition before the High Court.
He was ordered to be evicted from the land in question and the land was ordered to be restored to aforesaid Madavi.
The land, Survey No.8 was purchased under an Agreement of Sale dated 8th March 1963 by the brother of the first respondent from the 4th respondent, who is a daughter of the tribal Jaithu.
The Pattedar of this land was a tribal.
2407 of 1986 J U D G M E N T B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. C Nos.
Ultimately the said proceedings terminated against the respondent.
The transfer of the said land in his favour companytravened the provisions of Section 3 1 of the Regulation.
The respondents, writ petitioners before the High Court had purchased the land in their occupation on 19th June 1919 from a number tribal named Pappala Appanna.
Facts leading to Civil Appeal No.6 of 1991 In this appeal the authorities functioning under the very same Regulation have brought in challenge the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
The Special Deputy Collector, Adilabad, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 4th December 1975 directed ejectment of appellant and restoration of land in favour of respondent number3 herein and one Naithan Bai another daughter of Mesram Gangu.
1041 of 1986 This appeal is moved by Special Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare, and the District Collector, Adilabad, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Respondent number.3 and 4 are sons and daughters of Jaithu.
As numbered earlier the said decision of the Full Bench is brought on the anvil of scrutiny by the appellant authorities in this appeal.
8424/95 arising from L.P. C No.2407 of 1986 In this appeal appellant is one T. Rajaiah who has brought in challenge the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing appellants Writ Appeal No.406 of 1977 on 16.11.1985 and companyfirming the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2449 of 1977 dated 14th July 1977.
4204 of 1977 and group decided on 21st August 1981.
Respondent number1 unsuccessfully went in appeal where stay was refused.
He thereafter filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Said area was declared to be a scheduled area as per the provisions of Regulation I of 1959 as amended by Regulation II of 1963, being the ex Telengana area.
Facts leading to Civil Appeal number 2909 of 1977 The appellant authorities, namely, Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare and the District Collector functioning in Srikakulam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh, have brought in challenge a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing Writ Petition No.
8422 of 1995 Arising out of L.P. C No.10746 of 1981 C.A. No.
They filed a petition under Section 3 2 of the Regulation I of 1959 before the Special Deputy Collector alleging that the transfer of the lands under the Agreements of Sale companytravened the provisions of Section 3 1 of the Regulation and that they were entitled to be put back in the possession of the said lands.
10746 of 1981 This appeal is taken out by the Collector and Special Deputy Collector of Adilabad District in Andhra Pradesh.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on 8.2.1984 holding that the provisions of the Regulation as extended to Adilabad District in ex Telengana region by Regulation II of 1963 companyld number affect the transfer in favour of respondent number1 which was made years back and when that transfer was valid and was supported by certificate of ownership granted to respondent number1 under Section 38 E of the Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
Said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 13th June 1979.
After the promulgation of the Regulation in 1959 as amended by Regulation I of 1970 the companypetent authority being agent of the Government initiated proceedings against the respondents on the ground that the said sale in their favour was hit by Section 3 1 a of the Regulation and, therefore, the respondents were liable to be evicted from the land in question which had to be restored to the original vendor or his successor in interest.
8423 of 1995 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.1041 of 1986 and C.A. No.
121 of 1985 which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court and whereby the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
That Writ Appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated 11th February 1985.
The respondents appeal before the District Collector failed.
10746 of 1981, 1041 of 1986 and 2407 of 1986.
4434 of 1975 moved by the respondents, praying for a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the orders of the appellant authorities passed under the provisions of the Regulation.
The authorities as appellants before this Court have filed this appeal having obtained special leave to appeal from this Court against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
