YERRA VENKTESHWARULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has got a long and chequered career. The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.172/A of Bayyaram Village, from one Merugu Mallaiah, S/o. Ilaiah through an unregistered sale deed dated 14.2.1964. On a report submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Yellandu, the Special Deputy Collector, Palvancha, third respondent herein, initiated proceedings under the A.P. (Scheduled Area) Land Transfer Regulations, 1959, read with Regulation 1/70 (for short "Regulations"). One Mr. Puli Perumalla was shown as the petitioner. Since Perumalla died during the pendency of the said proceedings, his grandson, by name Puli Ramulu, was shown as his legal representative.

(2.) On receipt of notice from the third respondent, the petitioner appeared and put forward his defence. He pleaded that the sale in his favour is not affected by the provisions of the Regulations, since they came into force subsequent to the sale in his favour. Other grounds were also pleaded. The third respondent passed an order on 10.10.1979, holding that the sale in favour of the petitioner is in violation of Section 47 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Tenancy Act").

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Agent to Government/District Collector, Khammam, second respondent herein being CMA No.95 of 1979. The appeal was dismissed on 18.3.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9701 of 1987 before this Court. It was admitted and interim stay was granted. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.7.1990, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of revision. Status quo was directed to be maintained pending the disposal of the revision. The petitioner states that he preferred a revision before the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department. He states that the revision was neither rejected nor returned, and he was under the impression that it is still pending. On realising that the revision ought to have been preferred before the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, such a revision has been preferred before the fifth respondent herein, on 29.7.2005, with an application to condone the delay. His grievance is that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bayyaram, fourth respondent herein, is taking steps in the meanwhile, to dispossess him.