X RAJAMALLU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order made by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Adilabad, the 3rd respondent herein, and confirmed by the Collector, Adilabad the 2nd respondent herein, and the State of Andbra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, and to issue a writ of mandamus restraining them from taking any action to nullify the transfer of ownership in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenancy Act') or under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Land Transfer Regulation).

(2.) A few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised in this writ petition may be briefly stated: The petitioner's father, a non-tribal, who was in possession of the land of an extent of Ac. 8.09 guntas in S. No. 150 of Kasipet village, in Luxettipet taluk of Adilabad District which is an agency tract within the meaning of section 2 (a) of the Land Transfer Regulation, was declared "a protected tenant" under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. On his death, the right of protected tenancy devolved on the petitioner under section 40 of the Tenancy Act and the petitioner was continuing in possesion thereof as a protected tenant. The provisions of section 38-E of the Tenancy Act were extended to Adilabad District by way of a notification with effect from 1st January, 1973 and as a consequence thereof the ownership of the land stood transferred to the petitioner. The Special Deputy Collector. Tribal Welfare, Adilabad (3rd respondent), purporting to act as an Assistant Agent under the provisions of Land Transfer Regulation issued a notice under section 3 of the said Regulation as to why the petitioner should not be treated as an illegal and unauthorised occupant and why he should not be evicted. The' petitionei represented the above facts and pleaded that as he was in authorised possession of the land in question, he .should not be evicted. However, rejecting the petitioner's pleas, the 3rd respondent, by his order dated 7th July, 1976, directed his eviction. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the 2nd respondent; but the appeal was alse dismissed on "th May, 1977. The petitioner further carried the matter in revision to the Government but the Government dismissed the same on 14th October, 1977. It is these proceedings that ate called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner claims that his father was declared a protected tenant in respect of the land in question and that, after his death, he has been in possession of the land as a protected tenant and, therefore, he has acquired the right of protected tenancy under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The ownership of the land stood transferred to him under section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. There was no transfer in his favour within the meaning of section 2 (g) of the Land Transfer Regulation and as such, no proceedings under the Land Transfer Regulation could be taken against him much lest couid he be treated as an unauthorised occupant of the land liable to be evicted under section 3 of the Land Transfer Regulation,