APHC010018702014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 8940/2014 Between: 1. YARRAMILLI SRIRAMA KRISHNA RAO, S/O.LATE VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.D.NO.17-18-12, TANUKU, NEAR WATER TANK, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR TRIBAL WELFARE, RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF A P REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE (LTR-2), DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Ref.B/126/2013, dt.5-2-2014 to evict the petitioner under the provisions of Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations (Reg.1/70) as wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and power and consequently set aside the notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Ref.B/126/2013, dt.5-2-2014 in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. SRK, J W.P.No.8940 of 2014 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 11173 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by the 2" respondent in Ref.B/126/2013, dt.5-1-2014 including dispossession of the petitioner from his lands to an extent of Ac.1.96 cents in Sy.No.1/2 and Ac.16.53 cents in Sy.No.2 situated in Thimmapuram Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.8940 of 2014 3 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent No.2. Perused the entire material available on record. 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 notice issued by 2nd respondent in Ref.B/126/2013, dated 05.02.2014 to evict the petitioner under the provisions of the Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations (Reg.1/1970), as wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and power and consequently, set-aside the said notice issued by 2nd respondent in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders …’ 3. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that, petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.96 cents in Sy.No.1/2 and Ac.16.53 cents in Sy.No.2 situated in Thimmapuram village, Addateegala Mandal of East Godavari District. The above landed property was purchased by one late Yerramilli Srirama Murthy, who is petitioner’s grandfather, under Registered Sale Deed, dated SRK, J W.P.No.8940 of 2014 4 20.01.1959 vide Doc.No.103/1959 from one Lingupandu Gollamma; that ever since the date of purchase, petitioner’s family members are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above mentioned landed property. (b) The petitioner’s grandfather executed a Will, dated 23.05.1994 bequeathing the above said landed property in favour of petitioner and later, his grandfather died on 19.06.1995. By virtue of the said Will, the petitioner became owner and possessor of the above said landed property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by cultivating the same. The petitioner is a non-tribal and the above property is situated in the scheduled area. There is no transfer contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (for brevity ‘the LTR 1 of 1970’) and any testamentary disposition does not come under the purview of transfer as contemplated under the said Act. As the petitioner was staying at a different place, he employed a farm servant to cultivate the lands. (c) While so, 2nd respondent issued a Notice in Ref.B/126/2013, dated 05.02.2014 stating that petitioner is not residing in the village and on his behalf one Seva Nooka Raju is SRK, J W.P.No.8940 of 2014 5 cultivating the lands and initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the LTR 1 of 1970, and the petitioner appeared before 2nd respondent on 03.03.2014 and the petitioner brought to the notice of 2nd respondent as to how the schedule property was acquired and further that, he was staying in Tanuku village due to his family requirements. (d) Respondent No.2 was making hectic steps to evict the petitioner from the above lands in spite of his explanation to the notice, dated 05.02.2014; that the Agent to the Government or the Agency Divisional Officer is the competent authority to initiate proceedings for ejectment of petitioner from the immovable property situated in the Agency Tracks. The respondent No.2 has no power or jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings to conduct inquiry under the provisions of the LTR 1 of 1970. Therefore, Notice, dated 05.02.2014 issued by 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. At the stage of admission in the Writ Petition, this Court, vide Order, dated 25.03.2014 granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice issued by 2nd respondent. SRK, J W.P.No.8940 of 2014 6 5. Rule 7 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Rules, 1969 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 1969’) contemplates as under: (1) Where the Agent, the Agency Divisional Officer, or the Officer referred to in sub-rule 3 receives an application from anyone interested, or information in writing by a public servant or has otherwise reason to believe that a transfer of immovable property has been made in contravention of sub-section 3, he shall give notice to any person in possession of the property claiming under the transfer, to show cause within the period specified in the notice, not being less than fifteen days from the date of its service why he should not be ejected, and property restored to the transferor or his heirs. 6. Going by the aforesaid proviso, it is, indeed, the Agent, the Agency Divisional Officer or the Officer referred to, in sub-rule 3 has the power to initiate action or to give a notice to any person in possession of the property claimed in the transfer. 7. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1969 states that in addition to the Agent and the Agency Divisional Officer, it is the Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), who is competent Officer for initiating the proceedings. A perusal of the aforesaid proviso goes to show that there is absolutely no mention that the Tahsildar has got power to issue notice. In the present case on hand, 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, without there being any jurisdiction, has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner. Since, 2nd SRK, J W.P.No.8940 of 2014 7 respondent-Tahsildar does not come within the purview of Rule 7 (1) of the Rules, 1969, where he has got authority to issue impugned notice or initiate any proceedings against the petitioner herein, the impugned notice issued by 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, balance of convenience is in favour of petitioner and the impugned notice issued by 2nd respondent deserves to be set- aside on the ground that 2nd respondent-Tahsildar is not competent authority to issue the same. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting-aside the Notice issued by 2nd respondent vide Ref.B/126/2013, dated 05.02.2014. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 18th November, 2025. DNB