KALAGARA VIGHNESWARARAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed, questioning the order of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.68, Social Welfare (LTR.1) Department, dated 30-7-2001, by which, it has confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru, in S.R.No.26/78, dated 29-9-1978, in exercise of powers under the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 (for short 'the Regulation 1/1959'), as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner, that he is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.9.05 guntas, situated in R.S.No.637 of Buttaigudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. It is stated, that his late father had purchased the land in question from one Smt. Gundumogula Kusumamba, w/o Laxmanrao, initially by agreement of sale dated 2-5-1969, and, thereafter, obtained registered sale deed in the year 1975.

(3.) The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru, basing on the report sent by the Special Deputy Tahasildar, Tribal Welfare, Eluru, initiated proceedings for eviction against the late father of the petitioner herein, on the ground, that the transfer of the property in his favour was in violation of the provision under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Regulation 1 of 1959, and, called for explanation from him, why he should not be evicted from the land in question. Late father of the petitioner responded to the show-cause notice and filed explanation. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru, ordered for eviction, by order 29-9-1978 passed in S.R.No.26/78. As against the same, an appeal was preferred before the Agent to Government, and, the same was also confirmed, on further revision of the petitioner, by the Government. In the impugned order, the revisional authority has observed, that the agreement of sale dated 2-5-1969 is not valid one, inasmuch as the same was not registered. Further, making reference to the registered sale deed, which was executed on 24-6-1975, the revisional authority recorded the finding that the transaction is hit by the provision under Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959.