JANI KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. DIST COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The point raised in all these writ petitions is common and therefore they can be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The prayer in all these writ petitions is to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from their respective holdings till the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 are finally disposed of. The petitioners are stated to be in possession of lands in several villages situated in the former Kurupam and Vizianagaram estates which have been abolished and taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition'and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,XXVI"of 1948. It is stated that they have been in possession of the said lands over the last 40 to 50 years and therefore they say that they are entitled to pattas in respect of the said lands, which are ryotwari lands, in their occupation under the provisions of the said 1948 Act. It is stated that ryotwari settlement was not effected in the said estate prior to the abolition on account of those villages being situated within the scheduled area. Meanwhile, the Governor of Madras issued a Regulation 4 of 1951 called the Madras Scheduled Areas Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1951 which was subsequently amended in 1960. However, in 1970 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Ryotwari Settlements Regulation, 1970 being Regulation II of 1970 providing for carrying out the settlement and granting of pattas in the Scheduled areas. The petitioners say that they are entitled to pattas even under the provisions of the said Regulation 2 of 1970. The Governor of Andhra Pradesh with a view to regulate the transfer of lands in the Scheduled areas, had also issued the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959. Under this Regulation, any transfer of land within the Scheduled area by a tribal in favour of non-tribal was prohibited. The said Regulation I of 1959 was amended in 1970 by Regulation 1 of 1970 where under any transfer of immoveable property situated in the Agency tracts by a person, whether or not such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, was declared to be absolutelynull and void unless such transfer is made in favour of a person who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Socities Act, and which is composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes. By virtue of Clause (b) of Section 3 a further statutory presumption is created that until the contrary is proved, any immovable property situated in the Agency tracts and in the possession of a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe, shall be presumed to have been acquired by such person or his predecessor in possession through a transfer made to him by a member of a Scheduled Tribe. It is then stated, by the petitioners that proceedings were being taken under the provisions of the said Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 as well as under the provisions of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for evicting the petitioners from the said lands on the ground that the petitioners (all of whom admittedly do not belong to Scheduled Tribes) are in possession of lands within the scheduled area contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid 1959 Regulation or that they were in unauthorised occupation of the Government lands.

(3.) Although it is not strictly necessary for the purpose of these writ petitions it may also be staged that some of the petitioners have been from, time to time taking one or other proceedings including the filing of the writ petitions in this Court to protect their possession, They challenged the validity of Regulation 1 of 1959, but their plea was repelled. They also challenged the Amending Regulation 1 of 1970 which also proved fruitless. They also, challenged the validity of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, but the validity of the said Act was also upheld by this Court. It would also appear that some of these petitioners filed earlier writ petitions being W.P. No, 2654 of 1970 dismissed on 3-2-1974 and W.P. No. 2360 of 1972 dismissed OB 5-10-1974. The learned Government Pleader has furnished a list containing the said particulars narrely which of the petitioners were petitioners in the earlier writ petitions which have been dismissed with a view to show that the present writ petitions filed by the very same persons are barred by res judicata.