(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondents 3 to 5 in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from their land to an extent of Ac.I .69 cents in Sy.No.207/4 of Indukuru Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District in pursuance of the memo issued by the 3rd respondent in Ref. A/157/2013, dt.5-2-2014 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art.14,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from the above mentioned lands in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 29179 OF 2014

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from their land to an extent of Ac.1.69 cents in Sy.No.207/4 of Indukuru Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District in the interest of justice)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for the Revenue representing respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the entire material available on record. With the consent of learned counsel for both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

2. This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

               “to issue a Writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3 to 5 in seeking to dispossess the petitioners form their land to an extent of Ac.1.69 cents in Sy.No.207/4 of Indukuru village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District in pursuance of the memo issued by 3rd respondent in Ref.A/157/2013, dated 05.02.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from the above mentioned lands in the interest of justice.’

3. Contents of the affidavit filed by 2nd Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the petitioners are non-tribals; that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.No.207/4 of Indukuru village, Devipatnam Mandal of East Godavari District, which is a scheduled area; that the said land was purchased by their great-grandfather viz. Venkata Swamy in the year 1911 and since then, the family members of petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land.

               (b) During the life time of petitioners’ father, the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram filed a complaint in respect of the above land vide LTRP No.504/1979 for ejectment, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959 as amended by 1/1970 (for brevity ‘the Regulation, 1/1970’); that subsequently, the said complaint was dropped by 2nd respondent vide Order dated 29.10.1979, holding that there was no transfer, violating the Regulation 1/1970.

               (c) Respondent No.6 filed another complaint under the Regulation, 1/1970 in respect of the aforesaid land and it was numbered as ADO LTP No.7/2012 on the file of 2nd respondent and it is still pending on its file. While so, 3rd respondent issued a Memo in Ref.A/157/2013, dated 05.02.2014 addressing all the Revenue Officials in Devipatnam Mandal to take possession of the lands mentioned in the said memo, in which, the petitioners’ land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.69 cents in Sy.No.207/4 was also mentioned; that pursuance to the said Memo, respondent Nos.4 and 5 came to the petitioners’ lands on 05.08.2014 and 06.08.2014, and tried to evict the petitioners forcibly, but, the petitioners resisted their high-handed and illegal action; that there was maize crop in the said land and without there being any eviction order passed by any authority, the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the said land is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Writ Petition.

4. This Court, vide Order dated 13.08.2014 directed as under:

               “Since there is no adverse order against the petitioners as on today, the petitioners shall not be evicted in pursuance of the said memo pending further hearing.”

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare would submit that this Court, as an interim measure, ordered that the petitioners shall not be evicted in pursuance of the Memo vide Ref.A/157/2013, dated 05.02.2014, and that the authorities will follow due process of law for evicting the petitioner from the subject land.

6. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that the Special Deputy Tahsildar filed LTRP No.504 of 1979 before the Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram for restoration of the schedule land to the Government from the respondent therein, who is none other than the father of 2nd petitioner herein. The Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) vide Order, dated 29.10.1979 in LTRP No.504 of 1979 dropped the proceedings against the respondent therein by observing as under: (paragraph Nos.3 and 5)

               “3. The respondent Sri Malla Adinarayana who is the son of Suraiah was present and examined as R.W.1. He deposed that the petition schedule land is measuring Ac.2-00 cents and it relates to Indukuru village; that his father told him that his grandfather Venkata Swamy purchased this land in the year 1911 from Pulapalli family; that documents and tax receipts are also with his uncle; that he does not know whether the permission was obtained from the Collector or not; that the Settlement Officer has granted patta to this land and it is produced as Ex.R1; that he will produce the documents and tax receipts at the time of next hearing. He deposed in cross examination that it is not true to say that the petition schedule land does relate to Koyadoras. He further stated that the documents have been produced but his uncle Malla Govindam in his case Land Transfer Regulation Petition No.524/79.

               5. As seen from the two documents produced in Land Transfer Regulation Petition No.524/79 by his uncle Malla Govindam who is a respondent in that case the registered sale deed dated 15.12.19 (Ex.R1) between a tribal and a non tribal by which time Ac-1 of 1917 does not come in existence. Ex.R2 another sale deed dated 11-6- 1925 executed between two non-tribals. Ex.R1 which was produced by the Respondent in this caes in Ryothuvaripatta issued by the Settlement Officer. These two transactions do not hit by Section-4 of Ac-1 of 1917, as amended subsequently. As seen from the Amarkam Account for F.1335 the petition schedule land was stand registered in the name of Pulapalli Venkanna of Pazulla. The transfers are therefore, valid under Land Transfer Regulation. Hence, the petition is dropped.”

7. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraphs goes to show that as there was no transfer violating the provisions of the Regulation 1/1970, the Deputy Collector, East Godavari District at Rampachodavaram dropped the complaint, which was registered against the father of 2nd petitioner as LTRP No.504 of 1979. However, the material on record discloses that basing on the complaint made by 6th respondent, ADO LTP No.7/2012 was registered and pending on the file of 2nd respondent and in the meantime, 3rd respondent issued Memo vide Ref.A/157/2013, dated 05.02.2014, notifying the scheduled land owned by petitioners along with other lands and directed the revenue officials to take possession of all those lands. Pursuant of the said memo, respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to evict the petitioners from the schedule lands on 05.08.2014 and 06.08.2014 without there being any eviction order from the competent authority. Indisputably, ADO LTP No.7 of 2012 is pending before 2nd respondent and except the impugned Memo, no order was passed by the competent authority. When the dispute in respect of the scheduled land owned by the petitioners is pending before 2nd respondent, the act of 4th and 5th respondents acting upon the Memo issued by 3rd respondent is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. This Court, vide Order dated 13.08.2014 directed the respondents that the petitioners shall not be evicted in pursuance of the said Memo, pending further hearing. This Court directs the respondent- authorities to adhere to the procedure contemplated under law in respect of the subject property. Till then, the Order dated 13.08.2014 granted earlier, shall continue.

8. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.