MAMILLAPALLI CHINAKOTESWARA RAO Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dadi Narayana Swamy, (3rd respondent) filed a petition in SR No.96 of 1979 before the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, seeking restoration of the lands to him. By the order dated 23-5-1980 the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, allowed the said petition. That order was kept in abeyance by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 129, Social Welfare Department, dt. 13-8-1979. After the said GO was quashed in W.P.No.1755 of 1980, by the order dated 5-12-1984, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), by his order dated 28-4-1986 directed the respondents in SR No. 96 of 1979 i.e., Achanta Ayanna, Doddi Veeranna, Parimi Rattayya, Parimi Surya Rao, Avula Mavulayya and Ch. Ramayyamma to restore possession of Ac.35-00 cents in patta No.27, to the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, D.Veeranna, Parimin Rathaiah and Parimi Surya Rao preferred S.R.A.No.31 of 1986 to the Agent to the Government, who by his order dated 20-8-1987 allowed the same in respect of the lands in possession of Doddi Veeranna and Parimi Rathaiah i.e., Ac.4-00 cents in Juvvikoyya Chenu and Ac.4.00 cents in Marrikoyya Chenu and dismissed the appeal of Parimi Surya Rao in respect of Ac.7-00 cents in Marrikoyya Chenu. Aggrieved by the said order of the Agent to the Government, 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.4392 of 1987 in this Court, adding Achanta Ayyanna, Doddi Veeranna, Parimi Surya Rao, Parimi Rattaiah, Chavatapalli Ramayamma also as respondents. That petition was allowed in part on 15-6-1994, with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to evict respondents 3,5 and 7 therein i.e., Achanta Ayyanna, Parimi Surya Rao and Chavatapalli Ramayamma from the land in Patta No.27 situated at Surapuvarigudem village, H/o Buttaigudem, which order became final. Thereafter, 1st respondent issued a memo dated 23-6-2003 to the Revenue Inspector directing him to take possession of Ac.17-31 cents i.e., Ac.6-45 cents in R.S.No.266/3, Ac.1-00 in R.S.No.266/4, Ac.3-00 in R.S.No.269/3, Ac.3-46 cents in R.S.No.270/4, Ac.2-40 cents in R.S.No.292/1 of Buttaigudem village from Mamillapalli Peda Koteswara Rao, Doddi Venkanna, Kusuluri Surya Rao, Parimi Rathaiah and Parimi Seetaratnam of Surapuvarigudem village and restore them to the third respondent. That memo dated 23-6-2003 of the first respondent is questioned in this petition.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since none of the petitioners was given an opportunity of being heard before the order in the memo impugned was passed, and when the appeal filed by the 5th petitioner (Parimi Rathaiah) was allowed by the Agent to the Government and the writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent questioning the said order was dismissed and when none of the petitioners 1 to 4 are parties to S.R.No.96/79, filed by the 3rd respondent, the direction to eject the petitioners, in violation of principles of natural justice and without properly looking into the facts of the case, is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is that since the order of the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) directing restoration of possession of Ac.35-00 cents to the 3rd respondent became final in respect of the persons, who did not prefer an appeal, and since the appeal filed by Doddi Veeranna and Parimi Rathaiah was allowed only in respect of Ac.8-00 cents, and that order was confirmed by this Court, 3rd respondent who is entitled to recover possession of Ac.27-00 cents is not put in possession of the entire extent of Ac.27-00 cents but was put in possession of only Ac.26-00 cents and since the presumption under Regulation No.3 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959, (the Regulation) is in favour of the 3rd respondent, who is a Tribal, and since petitioners are not Tribals, petitioners are not entitled to any relief. It is his contention that after the Special Deputy Collector and Agent passed orders, referring to patta number of the lands, a survey was conducted and lands were given numbers and sketches and correlation statements are prepared by the Government and since those sketches and statements clearly show that the lands in possession of the petitioners are covered by the patta number mentioned in the orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare and the Agent to the Government, first respondent directing the 2nd respondent to restore possession of the lands in favour of the 3rd respondent cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. It is his contention that parties against whom order of eviction is passed would, in order to frustrate the order or cause delay, induct third parties in possession and make a claim through them that they have a right to be heard. It is his contention that since land is already delivered possession to the 3rd respondent this petition became infructuous.