. J IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1232 OF ?nifi Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment in W.P.No. 12869/2006 dated 02.08.2016 the High Court. Sjl Appeal preferred , on the file of Between: 1. Lanka Apparao (DIED) 2. Lanka Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o.late Apparao, Aged about. 26 Years Occ Cukivation R/o.Molleru Mallavaram Village, Gangavaram Mandal' East Godavari District. 3. Lanka Pedakapu, S/o.late Apparao, Aged about. 30 Years Occ' Cukivation R/o.Molleru Mallavaram Village, Gangavaram Mandal East Godavari District. ...APPELLANTS AND Secretary, Social UderaLd Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat at 2. The Agent to the Govt. District. 3, The Deputy Collector (TW), Rampachodavaram Godavari District. 4. The Additonal Agent to the Government Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District. cum- District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari (Gangavaram) East & Project Officer, I.T.D.A y 5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WAMP. NO: 2737 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 not to dispossess the petitioners from their land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.no. 123/1 situated in Molleru Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT r ‘ APHC010241102016 Bench Sr.No:-29 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1232 of 2016 Lanka Apparao (died) & 2 others ...Appellants Vs. ...Respondents PrI. Secy. SW Dept. & 4 others ********** Advocate for Appellants: Mr. K. Venkatesh GP for Social Welfare (AP) Advocate for Respondents: CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 27‘^ January, 2025. PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ : DATE The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 02.08.2016, passed in W.P.No.12869 of 2006, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner - appellant No.1 herein, has been dismissed and the orders passed by the authorities under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short, “A.P.S.A.L.T. Regulation, 1959”) as amended by Regulation No.1 of 1970, have been upheld. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: Section 3 (1) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 2. 1959, as amended by Regulation No.1 of 1970, envisages as under: 2 HCJ & RCJ WA_1232 2016 “3. Transfer of immovable property by a member of a Scheduled Tribe:- 1) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts any transfer or Immovable property situated in the Agency tracts by a person. Whether or not such person Is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, shall be absolutely null and viod, unless such transfer is made in favour of person, who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) which Is composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes. (b) ... (c) ... Sections 3 (2) & 3 (3) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, envisage as under; “2) (a) Where a transfer of immovable property is made in contravention of sub-section (1), the Agent, the Agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed Officer may, on application by any one interested, or on information given in writing by a public servant, or suo motu decree ejectment against any person in possession of the property claiming under the transfer, after due notice to him In the manner prescribed and may restore it to the transferor or his heirs. (b) ... 3) (a) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, an appeal against any decree or order under sub-section (2), shall lie within such times as may be prescribed- (I). if the decree or order was passed by the Agent, to the State Government; 3 HCJ & RCJ WA 1232 2016 (ii). if the decree or order was passed by the Agency Divisional Officer, to the Agent; and (Hi), if the decree or order was passed by any other officer, to the Agency Divisional Officer or Agent, as may be prescribed. (b) ... 3. In the backdrop of the aforementioned provisions, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare), Gangavaram filed a complaint under Section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation No.1 of 1970, in regard to a plot of land measuring 3 Acres, falling in Survey No. 123/1 of Molleru Village of Gangavaram Mandal, which is an agency area. 4. The petitioners - appellants herein were found to be in possession of the said land. According to the complaint, the transaction was hit by Section 3 of the Regulations of 1959, inasmuch as the transaction of the land in question was between two Non-Tribals, based upon an unregistered Sale Deed executed on 16.12.1968. The contention of appellant No.1 before the Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), West Godavari District, Rampachodavaram was that the transaction between the two Non-Tribals preceded the incorporation of Section 3(1 )(a), which came into force in the year, 1970, as the Sale Deed had been executed in the year, 1968 and further that appellant No.1 was in possession ever since the date of purchase. 5. HCJ & RCJ WA 1232 2016 This plea of appellant No.1, however, was not accepted by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), on the ground that an unregistered document, like an agreement to sell could not be relied upon, and further, that the appellant had failed to produce evidence in the shape of revenue receipts etc., for the period from 16.12.1968 onwards, so as to establish that he was in possession of the land right from 16.12.1968. The land revenue receipts. dated 05.02.1994 and 21.03.1995, were post the coming into force of Regulation No.1 of 1970 and therefore, it was held that the possession of appellant No.1 was violative of the provisions of Section 3(1)(ii) of 1959 Regulations as amended by Regulation No.1 of 1970. While allowing the petition/complaint filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar(Tribal Welfare), Gangavaram, directions were issued for the ejectment of the appellant from the land in question. 6. An appeal was preferred against the order, dated 17.02.1999, passed in L.T.R.P.No.282 of 1997, before the Agent to Government, East Godavari, Kakinada, which too came to be dismissed. 7. Against the decision of the Appellate Authority, a Revision was filed before the Government, which too came to be dismissed by virtue of Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.22, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department,dated 15.05.2006. \ 5 Y HCJ & RCJ WA 1232 2016 / 8. The appellant then challenged the orders impugned, before the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 12869 of 2006, which too was dismissed by virtue of judgment and order, dated 02.08.2016. Hence, the present writ appeal. The learned single Judge held that the transaction with regard to transfer of immovable property valuing more than Rs.lOO/- was required to be registered compulsorily as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and since, the Sale Deed, dated 16.12.1968, was unregistered, it was therefore, invalid or unenforceable. 9. The learned single Judge further observed that the issue with regard to whether the petitioners were in possession, prior to coming into force of Regulation No.1 of 1970, had been answered by the appellate authority as also by the Government in Revision by way of a reasoned order and therefore, while placing reliance on a Full Bench judgment of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Gaddam Narsa Reddy and others Collector, Adilabad District and others,^ dismissed the writ petition, and held that the Court could not re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the fact finding authorities. 10. vs. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants before us today sought to reiterate the stand which was taken by the appellants before the learned single Judge and tried to persuade us to accept the proof by way of land revenue receipts 'air 1982 (AP) 1 HCJ & RCJ WA_1232_2016 pertaining to the years 1994 and 1995, as sufficient evidence to prove his possession over the land in question. He also sought to emphasize that the document executed in the year 1968, having been executed before the coming into force of Regulation No.1 of 1970 of A.P.S.A.L.T. Regulation, 1959, could not have been ignored, for purposes of protecting the right of the appellants over the land in question. 12. However, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the argument propounded by the learned counsel for the appellants, as the authorities below, as also the Government in Revision, have clearly recorded a factual finding with regard to the petitioners failing to prove their possession over the land in question, apart from the fact that the document on which the petitioners relied upon was admittedly an unregistered document, which could not have created any legally sustainable right in their favour. There is nothing perverse in the finding so recorded which would warrant exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 13. Considering the spirit of Section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation No.1 of 1970, which aims to protect the right of the members of the Scheduled Tribes, who reside in the agency areas, who fall back only upon the land which is available in the said area, or are otherwise deprived of the facilities and opportunities which are otherwise available to people residing in cities and towns, we do not find I 7 HCJ & RCJ WA 1232 2016 any merit in the present writ appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE ^K^^FFiCER To, 1. One CC to Sri K Venkatesh Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCS to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies TF ■?1 s? \ HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1232 of 2016 0 6 FEB 2Cn /X \o X . Current Section DISMISSING THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS