VEMULA BHASKAR RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHARA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Syed Habib Khadri owned an extent of Acs. 365. 00 of land in Survey No. 19/2 of Peddireddigudem Village of present Chandragonda Mandal, Khammam District. The grandfather of the 5th respondent herein, by name Korivi Veeraswamy, a tribal was declared as a protected tenant in respect of Acs. 12. 12 guntas of that land under the A. P. (T. A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act' ). He was also issued a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. The grandfather of the first petitioner, by name Vemida Subbaiah is said to have purchased that land on 6. 1. 1961 under an unregistered sale deed from Veeraswamy.

(2.) ON a complaint made by Veeraswamy that the alleged sale in favour of Subbaiah is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 (for short 'the Regulation'), the Special Deputy Collector, Paloncha, the 3rd respondent herein took up the matter as L. T. R. Case No. 147 of 1977. Through an order, dated 5. 11. 1977, the 3rd respondent refused to interfere and dismissed the case. Subsequently, the 5th respondent approached the 3rd respondent with similar application. By that time, Subbaiah died and his son Narasimha Rao, husband of the 2nd petitioner, was impleaded as a party. It was taken up as L. T. R. Case No. 1288 of 1993. This case was also dismissed relying upon the order in L. T. R. Case No. 147 of 1977.

(3.) SRI Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject-matter of these proceedings, viz. , the land was covered by two earlier orders passed by the 3rd respondent and by operation of principle of res judicata, the subsequent adjudication is barred. He contends that the 2nd respondent while hearing the appeal, had undertaken independent exercise of verification of records behind back of the petitioners and arrived at a conclusion that the entries in relation to the possession over the land are forged. Learned Counsel submits that such a course is impermissible and in case, the 2nd respondent felt that verification is necessary, the matter ought to have been remanded or at least the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to participate. Learned Counsel further submits that the conclusions of the 2nd respondent, be it, as to the application of principle of res judicata or pressing into service the ground, based on Section 38-e of the Act, are untenable in law.