CHAVA LINGAIAH Vs. GOVERMENT OF A.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the orders passed by respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.80 dtd. 22/9/2007 confirming the orders passed by respondent No.2 in C.M.A.No.9 of 1998 dtd. 16/7/2001 and orders of respondent No.3 in LTR Case No.1130 of 1995/PAL, dtd. 22/11/1997 as illegal, contrary to the records, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) Heard Sri K. Jagadeeshwar, learned counsel appearing for Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Notice in respect of respondent No.6 is returned unserved.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land to an extent of Acs.4.20guntas in Survey No.81/80 situated at Payakari, Yanambile(v), Paloncha(M), Khammam District presently, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Petitioner purchased the property through agreement of sale dtd. 10/10/1968 from one G. Janakaiah thereafter he executed a registered sale deed vide No.1275/76 on 11/6/1976. He further submits that the petitioner's vendor had purchased the said property through registered sale deed dtd. 19/8/1968 from one Sri. Ganduri Achaiah, S/o Papaiah who is none other the father of respondent No.6 and the transaction is between non-tribals and no tribal interest is involved. He further submits that basing on the complaint of respondent No.6, respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under the Telangana State Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 1959 amended Regulation 1 of 1970 and its Rules 1969(herein after called as 'Regulations' for brevity) and passed ejectment order on 22/11/1997, though the provisions of the Regulations are not applicable to the subject land. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed appeal CMA No.9 of 1998 and respondent No.2 also without properly considering the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of respondent No.3 by its order dtd. 16/7/2001. Aggrieved by the above said orders the petitioner filed Revision invoking the provisions of Sec. 6 of Regulations before respondent No.1. The Revisional authority also without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner simply confirmed the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide G.O.Ms.No.80 dtd. 22/9/2007.