INAPALA CHARLES Vs. ELAGADA AKKAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law is raised in this writ petition. It is, whether a 'Mala' not born but residing in the Agency Area in East Godavari District is a Scheduled Tribal within the meaning cf the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959

(2.) The petitioners are 'Malas'. They were born in village in the non-Agency area in East Godavari District. They are working as teachers in the Agency Area of that district, while so, the first petitioner purchased some land on 21st December, 1948 and 2nd petitioner on 28th December, 1949, from the first respondent under registered sale deeds. The first respondent is a tribal. On the ground that the said alienations are void under section 3 of the Regulation the 1st respondent filed a petition before the Special Assistant Agent, Rajahmundry. He allowed tbe petition. Against his order the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, East Godavari. It was dismissed. The Special Assistant Agent as well as the District Revenue OfFcer held that the petitioners are panchamas and'Adi-Andhras' of the plains area and they are not Malas of Agency Areas. They further held that they are not tribals.

(3.) We have to see whether tl e first petitioner was a Scheduled Tribal on 2lst December, 1948 and the 2nd petitioner on 28th December, 1949. It is not disputed that they are Malas. On that date two notifications, G.O. Ms. NO. 1891 dated 2nd November, 1939 and G.O. Ms. No. 1359 dated 19th August,1926 issued by the Government cf Madras, were in force. In G.O. Ms. NO. 1891, Malas in East Godavari Agency were notified as Hill Tribes for the purpose of Agency Tracts Interests and Land Transfer Act, 1917. In G.O.Ms. NO. 1359, Malas in the Agency Tracts of the East Godavari were notified as Hill Tribes. In view of these two notifications, there can be no doubt that the petitioners were Hill Tribes on the date of their purchase.