(1.) Questioning the order dated 30-3-1989 passed by the 1st respondent in CM A No. 19 of 1986 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 8-8-1985, the present writ petition is filed. By the impugned order dated 8-8-1985, the 2nd respondent directed eviction of the petitioner from an extent of Ac. 13-20 guntas situate in S.Nos.77 and 16 of Kamalapuram village of Singareni Mandal, Khammam District and restoration of possession to the 3rd respondent herein who is a tribal.
(2.) The relevant tacts are these : The 3rd respondent filed a representation on 2-1-1978 complaining to the concerned authorities that his father was the pattedar of the land and it was illegally occupied by the petitioner and her son. On that complaint, an enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation (Regulation I of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Land Transfer Regulation') was initiated and notice was issued to the petitioner. In the course of enquiry, the 3rd respondent produced an order dated 10-5-1966 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem in O.S.No.6/65-67A recognising the Shikmidari right of his father and granting him a patta certificate. The petitioner pleaded that the land was purchased by his brother Koleti Narayana from the petitioner's father and two other tribals of the same family through an unregistered sale dated 23-4-1952. Sri Koleti Narayana made a gift of the land to the petitioner towards 'Pasupu Kumkuma'. Pursuant to the gift, the petitioner (or her son) had been in continuous possession paying land revenue. The 2nd respondent passed an order on 7-8-1984 stating that the 3rd respondent's father and Koleti Narayana were joint pattedars of the land as per the Pahanis and that the land was under the occupation of Koleti Narayana prior to 1963. He had also referred to the fact that the respondent before him (petitioner's son) filed an unregistered sale-deed dated 23-4-1952 executed on a stamp paper. As the transaction was prior to 1-12-1963, the 2nd respondent observed that no action was possible under Regulation I of 1959. He also observed that the Petitioner could approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem seeking restoration of possession under Section 67-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. After the death of the petitioners' father Jawadi Rajaiah who was a party to the earlier proceedings, the 3rd respondent filed an application once again on 28-1-1985 relying upon the patta certificate issued to his father and requesting eviction of the petitioner's son and others who were in unlawful occupation of the lands in question. On this complaint, once again, an enquiry was initiated by the 2nd respondent and a notice dated 1-7-85 was issued to the petitioner. The parties filed documents in support of their respective cases. The 2nd respondent held that the so-called sale-deed dated 23-4-52 was a fake document. The 2nd respondent referred to the various suspicious features- over-writings, condition of the stamps, the date of endorsement of the stamp-vendor, etc. It was also mentioned that the boundaries of the land were not given and S.No.16 was added after S.No. 77. The 2nd respondent referred to the land revenue Pass Book and commented that it started only from the year 1972-73. He also found that the columns in Pahanis were tampered with, incorporating the name of Koleti Narayana, as evident from the over-writings with different ink. He therefore came to the conclusion that the transaction was hit by Sec. 3(1) of Regulation I of 1959 and the alleged sale not having been proved, the occupants were liable for eviction. The Agent to Government (1st respondent) confirmed this order. The learned Agent, apart from adverting to the various suspicious features noted by the 2nd respondent, relied upon the order dated 10-5-1966 passed by the R.D.O., Kothagudem. In that order, the following are the observations made:
(3.) The learned Agent disbelieved the transfer of land to the petitioner/appellant by way of gift towards 'Pasupu Kumkuma' and the alleged transfer was held to be null and void, ft is against this order passed in CMA.No. 19/86 dated 30-3-1989, the present writ petition is filed.