APHC010515452013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18673 of 2013 Between: Mallavarapu Narendra Dalai, ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District and Others WRIT PETITION NO: 17310/2013 Between: Chitrapu Satyavathi, Visakhapatnam District ...PETITIONER AND The Dist Collector Visakhapatnam Dist 2 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NOs: 18673 and 17310 of 2013 COMMON ORDER: The issues involved in these two Writ Petitions are one and the same, and therefore, all the Writ Petitions have been heard and are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. W.P.Nos.18673 and 17310 of 2013 were filed questioning the Order in LTR.No.19 of 2008 dated 27.04.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent directing the 3rd Respondent to resume the lands of the Petitioners in favour of the Government in respect of the house site plot vide Block Nos.52 and 54 admeasuring to an extent of 1140 sq. yards of Araku Valley Township as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The father of the respective Petitioners were granted pattas in respect of Plot Nos. 52 and 54 to an extent of 1140 sq. yards at Araku Valley Township in the year 1955 for consideration. After the demise of their respective fathers, the Petitioners constructed houses in the respective plots and were residing in the said houses. 4. While so, the 3rd Respondent has issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, treating the Petitioners and others as encroachers of the said premises. Questioning the said action, the Petitioners have filed W.P. No. 5042 of 1993 before this Court. This Court, in its order dated 02.04.2004, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Petitioners to 4 submit explanations regarding the notices. Consequent thereto, the Petitioners submitted an explanation on 25.12.2004. It is stated that no further steps have been taken by the Respondent-authorities. 5. While so, the Respondent No.2 issued Notice under Form-E of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) against the Petitioners for the transfer of immovable property done in contravention of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation 1 of 1959. An explanation submitted by the Petitioners stating that there is no transfer of immovable property and the Petitioners have succeeded to the property after demise of their respective fathers and had constructed the houses. It is also stated that regulations do not apply to the property in question as transfers made prior to the regulations. 6. In spite of the explanations of the Petitioners, the impugned order came to be passed. In the impugned Order dated 27.04.2013, the Petitioners were called upon to vacate the subject premises, and the Tahsildar is directed to resume the said lands to the government, as the petitioners are not residing in the plots. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 7. On allegations that possession of Plot Nos.52, 53, 54 and 55 of the Araku Valley Township was in contraventions with the Regulation 1 of 1959, the case was taken on file and a notice was issued in Form-E under the provisions of AP. Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 1959 to the Petitioners. 5 8. One Mallavarapu Bhaskar Rao i.e., son of the assignee of Plot No.53 appeared before Respondent No.2 and submitted assignment pattas of house sites dated 31.07.1995 in respect of Block Nos.53, 54 and 55 and filed notice dated 22.04.1959 as regards Block No.52 as the assigned patta was misplaced. It is stated that there is no violation of the regulations as assignments were made by the authorities in the year 1955. 9. However, the impugned order came to be passed on the ground that the assignees of Block No.52, 54 and 55 had constructed houses, but are residing outside the State. The proceedings against Block No.53 were dropped as there was no contravention of the assignment. 10. A counter affidavit was filed supporting the impugned order. However, at paragraph 10, it was admitted that the Writ Petitioners were residing in the house at Block No.54 and that she could not attend before Respondent No.2 at the time of hearing. 11. Heard Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel representing the Petitioner, Sri. K. Sai Ram Murthy and Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the Respondents. 12. The impugned order was passed on the premise that though ACC Roof Shed and RCC Slabbed house was constructed in Block Nos.52, 55 and 54 respectively, the pattadars and their successors have settled elsewhere. The question that begs for consideration is whether the impugned order is within the scope of power under the A.P. Land Transfer Regulations. The power to 6 initiate action for contravention of Regulations would be on “transfer” of the property and the Regulation 3(1) of the Regulation 1 of 1959 reads as under: Transfer of immovable property by a member of a Scheduled Tribe:- 1. (a) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts any transfer of immovable property situated in the Agency tracts by 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) Until the contrary is proved, any immovable property situated 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 person or his presumed to have been acquired by person or his predecessor in possession through transfer made to him by a member of a Scheduled Tribe. (c). Where a person intending to sell his land is not able to effect such sale, by reason of the fact that no member of a Scheduled Tribe is willing to purchase the land or is willing to purchase the land on the terms offered by such person, then such person may apply to the Agency, the Agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed officer of the acquisition of such land by the State Government, and the Agent. Agency Divisional Officer or the prescribed officer, as the case may be, may by order, take over such land on payment of compensation in accordance with the principles specified in Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1961 (Act X of 1961), and such land shall there upon vest in the State government free from all encumbrances and shall be disposed of in favour of members of the Scheduled Tribes or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes or in such other manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed]; 7 13. The „transfer‟ of property is, therefore, a jurisdictional requirement to pass any order of ejection under the regulations. In this case, the impugned order was passed solely on the premise that the Respondents do not reside in the assigned properties and this reasoning is alien to the land transfer regulations. Therefore, the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. 14. On fact, the residence of the Petitioners in their respective plots was admitted at paragraph 10 of the counter affidavits. It was stated that on visiting the blocks of the Petitioners, it was noticed that Petitioners were residing in their respective houses at Block Nos.52 and 54 and on enquiry it was informed that they could not attend the LTR enquiry as they were out of station to see their sons and family members and requested for their continuance in their respective houses at Block Nos.52 and 54. The Counter Affidavit was filed by the Tahsildar, Araku Valley. In the light of these averments, the fulcrum of the impugned order is undone as petitioners are residing in the assigned houses. Therefore, on both counts i.e., factual and jurisdictional aspects, the impugned order is unsustainable. 15. In view of the reasons mentioned above, W.P.Nos.18673 and 17310 of 2013 are disposed of, with the following directions. i) The impugned order dated 27.04.2013 issued by 2nd Respondent in LTR No. 19 of 2008 is hereby set aside. 8 ii) The Respondent-authorities are directed not to interfere with the Petitioners‟ peaceful possession and enjoyment with regard to the schedule property. ii) There shall be no order as to costs; As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these cases shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 26.02.2026. JAK/eha 9 01 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NOs: 18673 and 17310 of 2013 Date:26.02.2026 JAK/eha