SIVUDU VENKATASWAMY Vs. AGENT TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, common questions of fact and law arise. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. Proceedings were initiated by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, K.R.Puram, before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, West Godavari district, against various individuals under Section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation No.1 of 1959) (for short 'the Regulations'). The allegations in these proceedings were that the respondents therein, who are non-tribals, have purchased various extents of lands from tribals, in contravention of the Regulations. A claim was made for resumption of such lands, as provided for under Section 3 of the Regulations. After issuing notices to the affected parties and on consideration of the matters, the Special Deputy Collector, had rejected the claim of the Special Deputy Tahsildar and refused to interfere with such transfers effected in favour of non-tribals.

(2.) The petitioners have presented appeals before the District Collector, West Godavari, who is designated as Agent to the Government under the Regulations, against the orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector. Through a common endorsement dated 1-11-2001, the Agent to the Government, the appellate authority, had returned the appeals as not maintainable. The said proceedings are challenged in this batch of writ petitions. The petitioners contend that having regard to the object underlying the Regulations, the strict rule of locus standi cannot be enforced. It is their case that the object of the Regulations being that the lands held by the tribals in the scheduled areas are not permitted to be held or enjoyed by the non-tribals, and having regard to the wide amplitude of proceedings under Section 3, the view taken by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. The contesting respondents filed counter affidavits. It is their case that the transfers of lands in their favour are not hit by the Regulations, the original authority had considered the matter at length, and refused to interfere with the same. They contend that the petitioners are strangers to the proceedings and they cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter, particularly, when the Special Deputy Tahsildar, who had initiated the proceedings, has not chosen to carry the same in appeal. Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Regulations were framed with a view to ensure that the lands held by the tribals in the agency areas are not enjoyed by non-tribals. He submits that having regard to the injustice suffered by the tribals, the Regulations were framed providing for special remedies, by relieving the proceedings from the ordinary procedure and principles. According to him, as long as the object of any proceeding or appeal is for ensuiring restoration of lands to the tribals, they cannot be scuttled by invoking the ordinary rules of procedure. He places reliance upon several judgments in support of his contentions.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for social welfare and learned counsel for the contesting respondents submit that unless the petitioners are able to show and establish any interest in the subject matter of the appeal, they cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter, which has assumed finality with the orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector. They submit that if such a course of action is permitted, it will result in unending litigation on the same subject matter.