IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV. TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUFt AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATj WRIT APPEAL Nos: 688 OF 2010 AND 461 OF 2016 WRIT APPEAL NO: 688 OF 2010 ^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 26-03-2010 in WP No. 6537 of 2001 in WA No. 688 of 2010 on the file of the High Court. Between: Smt. Konathula Venkayamma, W/o. K. Ganga Raju, Aged about 45 Years, D/o. Late Smt. Poloju Bhudevi R/o. Veerannapalem Post & Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ...APPELLANT/7"’ RESPONDENT:, AND 1. Smt. Duggina Suryakantham, W/o. Late Venkateswara Rao R/o. (Died) Buttaigudem Village & Mandal West Godavari District Smt. Bhogavalli Seshamma, W/o. Subba Rao R/o. Buttaigudem Vilage & Mandal West Godavari District. . 2. ...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS^ 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept. SecretariatBuildings, Hyderabad The Agentto Governmentof Andhra Pradesh,West GodavariDistrict at Eluru The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram, West Godavari Dist. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru The Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttayagudem, West Godavari District. X 4. 5. 6. 7. ' 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer Kovvur West .; Godavari Dist. Sraujjavarapu Sitharatnam, W/o.Jujjavarapu Ramakrishnan, Aged about years, Occ House Wife.R/o.Surapuvari Gudem Village, '^y Veerannapalem Post,Buttayagudem Mandalam, West Godavari District. (Respondent No.9 was brought on record as LR of respondent No.1 as per Court Order dt.24.12.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2016 in W.A.No.688 of2010) V A - ?■ ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS, I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WAMP. NO: 1654"'OF 2010^ 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 suspend the operation of order of Hon'ble Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.no. 6537 of 2001, dated 26.03.2010, so as to continue the petitioenr/ appellant in lands in R.S.No. 231/1 admeasuring 1.25 Hector and in R.S.No. 232/6 admeasuring 1.00 Hector of Buttaigudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the writ appeal. ^ I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WAMP. NO: IISCTOF 20111 Between: 1. Smt. Duggina Suryakantham, W/o. Late Venkateswara Rao R/o. (Died) Buttaigudem Village & Mandal West Godavari District 2. Smt. Bhogavalli Seshamrria, W/o. Subba Rao R/o. Buttaigudem Vilage & Mandal West Godavari ipistrict ...APPELLANT/?*'’ RESPONDENT^ AND 1. Smt. Konathula Venkayamma, W/o. K. Ganga Raju, Aged about 45 Years, D/o. Late Smt. Poloju Bhudevi R/o. Veerannapalem Post Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Tribal welfare Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 3. The Agent to Government of Andhra Pradesh, West Godavan Drstnct a, Eluru. 4. The Special Deputy Ramachandrapuram, 5. The District Collector 6. The Mandal Revenue 7. The Revenue Godavari Dist. 2. The Collector, Tribal Welfare , Kota West Godavari Dist. WestTBodavari District at Eluru Officer, Buttayagudem, West Godavari District. Settlemeht Officer, Kowur, West Divisional Officer-cum- ...petitioners/respondents. the circumstances the High Court may be . 688 of 2010 dated CPC praying that in Petition under Section 1 o j stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petito pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in 27.09.32010. ^ • SRI V. V. N. NARASIMHAM ^ G JYOTHl KIRAN^ GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE GP FOR REVENUE ^ SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Appellant for the Respondent N^s. 1 & 2 Counsel Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 Counsel for the Respondent No.9 ; SRI WRIT APPEf'' “D' A61 OF 2016 Patent preferred against the the file of the High Court order d''a?LTot2mtin WP^o'eSST®of 20oT on Between; 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep _by its Welfare Dept. Secretariat Buildings. Hyderabad 2. The Agent to Government of Andhra Pradesh. Eluru Secretary, Tribal West Godavari District at 3. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Ramachandrapuram, West Godavari Dist. Welfare, Kota 4. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttayagudem, West Godavari District. 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer, Kowur, West Godavari Dist. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND 1. Smt. Duggina Suryakantham, W/o. late Venkateswara Rao, (Died) Aged about 60 Years, R/o. Buttayagudem Village and Mandal West Godavari District. 2. Smt. Bhogavalli Seshamma, W/o Subba Rao, Aged about 57 Years, R/o Buttayagudem Village and Mandal West Godavari District. 3. Smt.Konathula Venkayamma, W/o.K.Ganga Raju, Aged 45 years, D/o.Late Smt.Poloju Bhudevi, R/o.Veerannapalem Post and Village,Buttaigudem Mandal,West Godavari District. 4. Jujjavarapu Sitharatnam, VV/o.Jujjavarapu Ramakrishna, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.Surapuvari Gudem Village, Veerannapalem Post,Buttayagudem Mandalam, West Godavari District. (Respondent No.4 was brought on record as per c.o.dt.24.12.2024 vide I.A.No.2 of 2016 in W.A.No.461 of 2016) ^ ...RESPONDENTS LA. NO: 1 OF 2011fWAMP. NO: 2271 OF 2011)^ 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 iTsuspend the operation of the 26.03.2010 pending disposer oTthe above writ appeal. ^ orders in W.P.No.6537/01 dt. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WAMP. NO: 1216 OF 20161 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 suspend the operation of the orders in WP No. 6537/01 dated disposal of the above writ appeal. ^ FOR SOCIAL WELFARE'' ; SRI G. JYOTHI KIRAN . SANIBASIVA PRATAP SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI ; COMMON JUDGMENT pleased to 26.03.2010 pending GP Counsel for the Appellants the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Counsel for Counsel for the Counsel for the The Court made the following Respondent No.3 : SRI E Respondent No.4; SRI APHC010845552016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 688 of 2010 along with WRIT APPEAL No. 461/2016 Between: The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Smt Duggina Suryakantham and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.G JYOTHI KIRAN 2.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI 3.E SAMBASIVA PRATAP CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 04.03.2025 COMMON JUDGMENT fPer Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Inasmuch as these intra court appeals arise out of the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.6537 of 2001, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this Judgment. ...RESPONDENT{S) common .WJl.H^os.461/2016 el 688/2010 2 2. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.461 of 2016 are respondents 1 to 6 and the appellant in Writ Appeal No.688 of 2018 is respondent no.7, whereas the respondent nos.l and 2 in both the appeals are petitioners in Writ Petition No.6537 of 2001. Consequent to death of respondent no.l pendent elite, her Legal Representative was added as respondent no.4 & 9 respectively in these Writ Appeals. 3. For expediency, the parties, hereinafter, will be referred to as per their status in the writ petition. 4. The petitioners claim to have purchased land in an extent of 1.25 Hectares in R.S.No.231/1 and 1.00 Hectare in R.S.No.232/6 of Buttayagudem village under two separate sale deeds dated 04.08.1967, which is in scheduled area besides being an estate village. They filed application under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Settlement) Regulation II of 1970 for grant of ryotwari patta, but the same was dismissed by the Settlement Officer. Ultimately, the appellate authority i.e. the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide orders dated 21.10.1998, recognized the title of the petitioners and directed grant of patta. The petitioners contend that during pendency of the said proceedings, they were dispossessed from the subject land and despite the orders passed in the appeal no steps were taken to implement the order and / / .WA.J{os.461/2016 qX 688/2010 to deliver the possession. Seeking implementation of the orders passed in the appeal dated 21.10.1998, the petitioners filed writ petition. 5. The respondent no.5-Tahsildar, filed counter-affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition inter alia contending that the petitioners owners of the subject lands prior to 1977 and thereafter their natural brother Gudapati Satyanarayana entered into possession. Thereupon, the respondent no.3 initiated proceedings in S.R.No.23/77 as per the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/1970 and ordered his ejectment vide orders dated 27.08.1977. The said orders were confirmed by Agent to Government vide orders dated 30.11.1981 in SRA No. 10/77. Revision filed by the said Satyanarayana against the orders of Agent to Government was pending. As there was no stay of orders against which revision was filed, possession of the land was taken on 04.04.1986. The orders granting patta in terms of Regulation 11/70 are hit by the orders passed in terms of Regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70. The petitioners, who are sisters of the person dispossessed, who was unsuccessful in the proceedings initiated under Regulation 1/70, with a view to grab the property, filed this writ petition. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. were 6. The 7^*^ respondent- Smt. Konuthula Venkayamma, filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition inter alia contending that .WJi.?ios.461/2016 el 688/2010 4 the writ petition filed for recovery of possession under the guise of the order under Regulation II of 1970 without reference to proceedings under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70 is not maintainable on that sole ground itself. It is further stated that pursuant to the application filed by her mother, proceedings under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70 were initiated against six persons including brother of petitioners and ejectment order was passed. Appeal preferred against it was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.1981. Pursuantly, possession of the subject lands was taken on 4.4.1986 and the same was restored to her mother, being the original tribe vide proceedings dated 28.3.1988 and eversince her mother and thereafter she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. It is further stated that though the petitioners asserted that they have been in possession since 1917 through their predecessors, the relevant particulars were not stated. Further, brother of the petitioners asserted his claim over the subject lands under the same transactions, documents and vendors as that of the petitioners, but they were found hit by regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 11/70 and ejectment orders were passed. The said ejectment order binds the petitioners also. The writ petition is only an afterthought that too to circumvent the orders passed under Regulation 1/70. The order passed under Regulation 11/70 is hit by non-compliance of issuance of notice as per Section 7 7 yfCJ€L<KCJ '.WA.U^os.461/2016<^ 688/2010 1 of Regulation 11/70 and therefore the same does not bind respondent no.7. Moreover, the order passed under Regulation 1/70 override the order passed under Regulation 11/70. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. 7. The learned single Judge upon considering the pleadings and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to make entries in conformity with ryotwari patta and restore possession to the petitioners. The learned single Judge made it clear that in case the ownership or enjoyment of the petitioners over the land is found to be contrary to Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70, the individuals concerned or authority to initiate steps in accordance with law. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents of the writ petition preferred these writ appeals as indicated above. 9. Heard Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel for appellant in Writ Appeal No.688 of 2010 and respondent no.3 in W.A.No.461 of 2016, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for appellants in Writ Appeal No.461 of 2016 and for respondent nos.3 to 8 in W.A.No.688 of 2010, and Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 81 4 in W.A.No.461 of 2016 and respondent nos. 2 & 9 in W.A.No.688 of 2010. I Vl./Ji.!Kos.461/2016 688/2010 10. Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned senior counsel for appellants in W.A.No.688 of 2010, while reiterating the contents of counter-affidavit filed in writ petition and also the grounds of appeal in contend that without any basis, the learned single Judge misconstrued as if the authorities had admitted the title of the petitioners over the subject lands. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the learned single Judge having observed that orders passed under Regulation 1/70 would prevail over the orders passed under Regulation 11/70 and that the implementation of orders under Regulation 11/70 would just entail making of entries in concerned record, ought not to have ordered for restoration of possession of the subject property. Further, the learned single Judge in utter ignorance of the facts that petitioners were never in possession and possession of the property was taken from their brother under panchanama, had come to an erroneous conclusion that the petitioners were dispossessed from possession pending appeal proceedings under Regulation 11/70. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the learned Single Judge failed to notice that original tribes were not made parties to the proceedings under Regulation 11/70 and therefore, the order passed under Regulation 11/70 does not bind them. Further, since brother of the petitioners suffered an order under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 11/70, which came to be passed W.A.No.688 of 2010 would ^ ‘RCJ .WJi.9<fos.461/2016 ^ 688/2010 / rejecting the self same documents and contentions raised by the petitioners now, the order so passed squarely binds the other family members including the petitioners, therefore, the observation made contrary by the learned single Judge is untenable. Hence, the orders passed by the learned single Judge are wholly unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the orders impugned. 11. Learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare, reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit and also the contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel further contended that the order passed under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 11/70 would equally bind the other family members of the person against whom the proceedings are initiated, however, the learned single Judge erroneously held that the said order does not bind the petitioners. The learned single Judge having made observations regarding the purview of Regulation 11/70 and that order passed under Regulation 1/70 prevails over the order passed under Regulation 11/70, could not have directed the official respondents to restore back possession to the petitioners. The orders impugned are untenable and unsustainable and they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeal. 12. Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 4 in W.A.No.461 of 2016 and respondent nos. 2 & 9 in W.A.No.688 Hi j{a ez: W.AMos.461/2016 cZ 688/2010 of 2010 i.e. the petitioners in the writ petition, justified the orders impugned, contending that the learned single Judge upon taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were dispossessed from possession without any ejectment orders that too pending disposal of the appeal under Regulation 11/70 and that they were not parties to the proceedings initiated under Regulation 1/70, had rightly allowed the writ petition. The learned counsel would further contend that no valid or justifiable grounds have either been raised or urged warranting interference with the orders impugned. The writ appeals being meritless are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeals. 13. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 14. The petitioners claims to have purchased the subject lands situated in a scheduled as well as Zamin Estate village from their vendor, a non-tribal, under registered sale deeds of even date on 04.08.1967. Thereafter, they filed application under section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Settlement) Regulation, 1970 (Regulation II of 1970) before the Settlement Officer for grant of ryotwari Patta. The said application was dismissed and so also part of the appeal preferred against the same. The petitioners filed application to review the orders passed in the appeal and thereupon the ^CJ .< %CJ '!4.^Ji.Ms.461/2016ei 688/2010 Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, passed orders dated 21.10.1998, thereby recognizing the title of the petitioners and directed to grant of patta in their favour in respect of the subject lands. Seeking implementation of the said orders, the writ petition was filed. 15. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the implementation of the orders under Regulation 11/1970 would just entail in making of entries in the records concerned, however, since the petitioners were stated to have been dispossessed from the property in view of the orders passed under Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70, during pendency of the appeal proceedings, restoration of possession was ordered. 16. The record would emanate that pursuant to the complaint made by mother of respondent no.7 viz., Smt. Poluju Bhudevi in S.R.No.23/77, ejectment order dated 27.08.1977 under Section 3 of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 as amended by 11/70 came to be passed against six (06) persons including Sri Gudapati Satyanarayana, who is brother of the petitioners. Against the said orders, the said Gudapati Satyanarayana and others preferred appeal in SRA No. 10/77 and the same was dismissed. ^cj ^ m:j '.WXO^os.461/2016 qZ 688/2010 / 10 17. The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1959, was amended by Regulation I of 1970 which came into force w.e.f. 3-2-1970 (for short 'Amended 1959 Regulation'). Section 3(l)(a) of the Amended 1959 Regulation statutorily declares null and void any transfer of immovable property situate in the Agency tracts by any person whether or not such person is a member of Scheduled Tribe, unless such transfer is made in favour of a person who is a member of Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, which is composed solely of members of Scheduled Tribes. This provision is immunised by a non obstinate provision qua any enactment, rule or law in force in the agency tracts. Section 3(l)(b) enacts a presumption that until contrary is proved, any immovable property situate in the agency tracts and in the possession of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe shall be presumed to have been acquired by such person or his predecessor-in-possession through a transfer made to him by a member of Scheduled Tribe. 18. A perusal of the orders passed in S.R.No.23/77 and SRA No. 10/77 would go to show that consequent to the complaint under Section 3(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/1970 that Sri Gudapati Satyanarayana (who is brother of ' ! WCJ'^<R£J ‘.^AMos.461/2016 688/2010 11 petitioners) along with six others were iin possession of lands situated in Chenchugudem, an Agency village, proceedings were initiated as per the provisions of Regulation I/S9 as amended by 11/1970. The brother of the petitioners produced sale deed dated Veeranna, Son of Ramanna and took by the provisions of Section 3 of Regulation 1/59 10.04.1967 executed by Abbina a specific stand that the sale is not hit as amended by Regulation 1/70, since his predecessors-in-title acquired the said property since 1917, much before coming into force of Regulation 1/59. The primary as well as appellate authority had held that the sale deed propounded by brother of the petitioners does not relate to the subject property viz., Guwi Chettu Chelaka Ac.3-00 and Vepa Chettu Chelaka Ac.3-00 was evicted) and it is in relation to the viz., Soorappavarigudem village. Accordingly, decided. in Chenchugudem, (wherefrom he property situated in a different village those proceedings were 19. The petitioners herein initiated proceedings under Regulation 11/1970 in respect of the lands covered by R.S.Nos.232/6^ and 231/1 of Buttayagudem village and Mandal of West Godavari District, an Ex-Estate village in the agency area, purchased by them from Sri Abbina of Ramanna vide registered sale document Nos. 1113 , 04.08.1967. They produced registered documents Veeranna, son & 1114 of 1967 dated to prove that on / 7(0 ei .WJl.!N'os.46l/2016 d 688/2010 / 12 17.04.1917 the said land was purchased by a non-tribal from tribal i.e. to say before advent of Land Transfer Act 1/1917, which came into force on 14.08.1917. The Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having held that the schedule lands have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the appellants and their predecessors well before the notified date of the Estate i.e. 04.02.1953 till Regulation 11/1970 came into force on 01.07.1971 and that their possession is valid under the Land Transfer Act 1/1917 and Land Transfer Regulation No.I/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70, ordered for grant of patta. 20. No doubt, the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings under Regulation 1/70. As held above, the said proceedings were initiated against brother of the petitioners and having found that the document produced by brother of the petitioners does not relate to the subject matter of the said proceedings, the primary as well as appellate authority negated the defence put forward by him and passed ejectment orders and accordingly, he was evicted therefrom. 21. The contents of the orders passed under Regulation 1/70 and Regulation 11/70 show that the land covered under the proceedings initiated under Regulation 11/70 is situated in Buttayagudem village and Mandal of West Godavari District, whereas the land covered under the proceedings 461/2016 688/2010 13 initiated under Regulation 1/70 is situated in Chenchugudem village, h/o. Buttayagudem village. 22. Admittedly, tribals are not made parties to the proceedings initiated under Regulation 11/70 so also the petitioners are not made parties to the proceedings initiated under Regulation 1/70. 23. The contention advanced by respondents that the petitioners claiming title over the subject property projecting the self same documents that were produced by their brother, is unsustainable. The petitioners' brother relied on the sale deed dated 10.04.1967 in the proceedings initiated under Regulation 1/70, whereas the petitioners placed reliance on the sale deeds dated 04.08.1967. No doubt, the vendor under both the documents is one and the same, however the documents relied on them are different. are 24. No material whatsoever is available on record to show whether the land covered under the proceedings under Regulation 1/70 and the land covered under the proceedings under Regulation 11/70 is one and the same or not. It is also not clear whether the documents relied on by the petitioners relate to the subject matter of the proceedings under Regulation 1/70. 25. As rightly held by the learned single Judge wherever there is conflict between the separate orders passed under the two Regulations, the order W.J!l.3ios.461/2016 e.i 688/2010 14 under Regulation 1/70 prevails. The learned Single Judge though held passed that implennentation of the orders passed under Regulation 11/70 would just records, ordered for restoration of the entail in making entries in the revenue possession, explaining the reason dispossessed without there being any therefor stating that the petitioners were order of eviction against them. to whether the subject matter the same, if so, whether the in relation to the property . Probably that might be reason for the the ownership and the land is found to be contrary to amended by 1/70, it shall always be open ot the authority to initiate steps in accordance with law. 26. As held above, there is no clarity as of both the regulations 1/70 and 11/70 is documents relied on by the petitioners are m wherefrom their brother was evicted single Judge to make it clear that in case learned enjoyment of the petitioners Regulation 1/59, as individuals concerned or over of the above, as there is dispute regarding identity of the learned single Judge regarding restoration needs modification. Before the land, it would be appropriate whether the land covered under is the same, if so, to under Regulation 1/59 as amended 27. In view property, the order passed by the of possession of the property to the petitioners restoring possession of the petitioners over the authorities to ascertain as to to direct the proceedings initiate proceedings against the petitioners initiated under both the regulations is ‘.W^.U^os.46l/20i6 eZ 688/2010 15 by 11/70 in case it is found that ownership and enjoyment of petitioners over under the sale deeds propounded by them in the the land covered proceedings under Regulation 11/70 is contrary to Regulation 1/59 as amended 1/70 and subject to outcome of the said proceedings, by Regulation consequential steps required may be undertaken. If it is found that lands are different and found that sale in favour of the petitioners is not hit by shall restore back possession of the Regulation 1/70, the authorities petitioners over the property. 28. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of modifying the orders by the learned single Judge as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. iSD/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTldN OFFICE" To, 1. The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District— 2. The Agent to Government of Andhra Pradesh, West Godavari District at-- Eluru. 3. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram, West Godavari Dist. 4. The District Collector, West Godavari District at ElurLTr 5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttayagudem, West Godavari District. 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer, Kovvur, \Ne€C 7. One CC to Sri V. V. N. Narasimham, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri G. Jyothi Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10.TWO CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 11. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, Advocate (OPUC) 12. One CC to Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, Advocate (OPUC) 13. Three C.D. Copies. r ■ Cnr \ \ \ \ \ \ high court \ \ « DATED:04/03/2025 i f 13 MAY 2025 5 Currmt Swuon . COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.688 of 2010 and 461 of 2016 (•: );4 W/THOUT COST™^ APPEALS