KOLA MAHALAXMI Vs. AGENT TO GOVERNMENT KHAMMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law. Hence I am disposing of both of them by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, I will first deal with W.P.No. 15544/1989 and in view of the legal position ascertained in this writ petition, I propose to dispose of other writ petition in W.P.No. 5684/1988.

(2.) W.P.No. 15544/1989 is filed by a non-tribal being aggrieved by the order dated 8-3-1989 passed by the Agent to Government, Khammam on C.M.A.No. 1/1989. By the impugned order, the appellate Court confirmed '.he order of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha dated 20-5-1988 passed on Case No. 417/88/PNK. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that both the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that the petitioner purchased the land on 11-3-1963 through an unregistered sale deed and ever since he has been in possession. He further submitted that the said sale deed dated 11-3-1963 was prior to the commencement of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (in short 'the Regulations'). The lands in this case are situated in Telangana Area and in this Telangana area, the Regulations came into force from 1-12-1963, and whereas the petitioner has purchased the same on 11-3-1963, prior to the commencement of the Regulations. Therefore, the authorities had no jurisdiction to set aside the said sale. He further submitted that the father of the respondent No. 1 - tribal had filed a petition before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Khammam in Case No. 472/72. But the said Special Deputy Collector vide order dated 24-5-1973 rejected the petition in view of the admission made by the respondent No. 1's father that the sale took place on 11-3-1963, prior to the commencement of the Regulations. Therefore, the son could not maintain the present petition once again over the concluded case and he is bound by the order suffered by his father. Against the said order dated 24-5-1973, no appeal or revision was filed and as such, the said order has become final. But the appellate Court in the impugned order chooses to set aside that order dated 24-5-1973 also. The appellate authority could not have done so and it has no jurisdiction to set aside that order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in G. Narsa Reddy vs. Collector, Adilabad District, the authorities under the Regulations have no jurisdiction or power to decide the validity of a sale that had taken place prior to the commencement of the Regulations. Lastly he also contended that to reopen a concluded matter after a period of twelve years is unreasonable and contrary to the law declared by this Court. Thus he contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand the Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent and also the Counsel appearing for the Government strenuously supported the impugned order. They contended that as held by this Court in the decision reported in G. Raghavulu vs. Agent to Government, the principle of res judicata does not apply to the authorities under the Regulations and for Tribunals. They further submitted that the alleged sale though appears to be prior to the commencement of the Regulations, but it was not a valid sale as held by the authorities below and, therefore, the said orders do not call for any interference. They further contended that the intendment of the Regulations is to protect the tribals who were being exploited since long time as against non-tribals. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference of this Court.