APHC010009892026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 114 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:- 1 [3584] Bethi Durga Rao ...Appellant Vs. Malladi Satyanarayana Srinivasa Chakravarthy and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: V V N NARASIMHAM Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR REVENUE, M BALANAGA SRINIVAS, GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 14th July 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present intra-court appeal is preferred under clause 15 of Letters Patent assailing the common order dated 09.10.2025 passed in W.P. No.14185 of 2023 and batch. 2. By aforesaid order, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter back to Special Duty Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem Mandal, Eluru District, to the limited extent of conducting inquiry as to whether the impugned order in the writ petition has been passed by Date of reserved for orders : 07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026 Date of uploading : 15.07.2026 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, after providing due notice and opportunity to all the stakeholders and to pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of present appeal are as under: (a) The subject matter of controversy or dispute in the present case is with respect to land admeasuring Acres 3.34 cents in R.S.No.181/3, situated at Rowthugudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal of Eluru District. Both the appellant as well as 1st respondent claimed right and title to aforesaid land. The appellant claims that initially the subject land belonged to Malladi Satyanarayana and during his lifetime, the same was leased in favour of appellant in the year 1991 and ever since, he has been in possession and enjoyment. (b) Subsequently, by virtue of registered WILL dated 17.03.1993 executed by Malladi Satyanarayana, subject property got bequeathed in favour of one of his sons namely Malladi Somasekhar Rao, who in turn alienated the subject land in favour of petitioner receiving sale consideration vide agreement to sell dated 25.05.1999. Further, when at the instance of Special Deputy Tahsildar, K.R.Puram, proceedings came to be initiated 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 under Regulation No.I of 1970 against the appellant and his vendor for eviction, upon contest, the Special Deputy Collector, K.R.Puram, passed Order dated 14.07.2001 in S.R.No.241 of 2001, directing Mandal Revenue Officer, Jeelugumilli, to eject appellant's vendor namely Malladi Somasekhar and to restore the land in favour of appellant, who was tribal. Mother of 1st respondent eventually challenged the said order in W.P.No.16294 of 2006, before this Court and later, withdrew the same and therefore, the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 13.11.2007. The appellant claims that basing on the said sale and subsequent orders passed under Regulation No.I of 1970, his name came to be mutated in revenue records and was issued pattadar passbook. (c) As against aforesaid claim of appellant, the 1st respondent, on the other hand, claims that subject property was initially acquired by his father and after his death, the same has been allotted to him in view of family settlement and therefore he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment. It is also stated that the subject land is situated in agency area of West Godavari District, hence, the same would fall within the ambit of Regulation No.I of 1970. The 1st respondent disputed genuineness of order 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 dated 14.07.2001 passed in S.R.No.241 of 2001, by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, and it is stated that the subject property of S.R.No.241 of 2001 was in respect of land in R.S.No.62/2B1 admeasuring an extent of 27 cents, situated at Gopalapuram Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal and it was a case concerning with one Mr.Pantula Venkanna. In that view of the matter, he was constrained to file the present writ petition challenging so-called order dated 14.07.2001 passed in S.R.No.241 of 2001. (d) Even before filing of aforesaid petition, the entries made in revenue records and pattaadar passbook issued in favour of appellant came to be cancelled at the instance of 1st respondent, which were assailed before this Court in W.P. No.1042 of 2009 and W.P. No.24334 of 2024. That apart, when at the instance of appellant, police protection to guard the subject land was ordered, the 1st respondent challenged the same in W.P. No.44 of 2010. (e) Learned Single Judge, by common order dated 09.10.2025, disposed of W.P.No.14185 of 2023 as mentioned supra and in view of the same, all other writ petitions came to be closed. 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 4. Heard Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for appellant on record and Sri M.Balanaga Srinivas and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. 5. (a) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant contends that when genuineness of impugned order dated 14.07.2001 passed in S.R.No.241 of 2001 has been verified and confirmed to be very much in order, by virtue of the communications dated 09.09.2008, issued by Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli and in turn responded to by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Polavaram, vide endorsement dated 10.09.2008, question of once again enquiring into the genuineness of the impugned order by present officer i.e., Special Duty Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, at this length of time doesn't arise. (b) He further took us to the instructions dated 06.10.2009, which were issued by District Collector, West Godavari District, to the Government Pleader for Social Welfare, concerning Contempt Case No.12269 of 2009 filed by the appellant, to contend that the said instructions categorically confirmed that by virtue of orders 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 dated 14.07.2001 passed in S.R.No.241 of 2001, the subject land has been directed to be restored in favour of appellant herein, who purchased the same under agreement to sell dated 25.05.1999 and that as no further appeal has been preferred against the said order, the same attained finality. The appellant had been in possession and enjoyment of subject land and eventually been issued passbook upon mutation of revenue records. Further instructions also clearly stated that the subject land had been inspected by then Tahsildar along with the VRO of Mulagalampally on 26.08.2008 and on enquiring with neighbouring riots, it was found that the land was under occupation and enjoyment of the appellant since last 15 years then. (c) Further, the instructions also stated that Rowthugudem Revenue Village, where subject land is situated, has been notified as Scheduled Area and that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe and whereas, 1st respondent who also claims to have been issued D-Form patta in favour of his father to be non-tribe (OC). 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 (d) In that view of the matter, it is contended that the 1st respondent in any event cannot claim any sort of right over subject property as Regulation No.I of 1970 clearly prohibits holding or sale in favour of a non-tribe. Since the afore mentioned communications, instructions were much prior in time, the counter of Special Duty Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, wherein a divergent stand has been taken qua should not be given much credence and further that the officer who deposed the said counter has been found to be indulged in various irregularities of manipulation of records for which he came to be suspended and removed from service. (e) It is also contended that out of Acres 3.34 cents, an extent of Acres 1.50 cents has been acquired for Chintalapudi Lift Irrigation Scheme by paying compensation to the appellant, which itself fortifies that the subject land belongs to him. (e) Therefore, it is urged that the impugned judgment be set aside and matter be remanded back to learned single judge for de novo consideration on merits. 6. (a) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent supported the impugned judgment. Further, he laid 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 much emphasis on the counter filed by Special Duty Collector (Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram), to buttress that order dated 14.07.2001 in S.R.No.241 of 2001 was concocted and manipulated one and there was no such order ever passed confirming any right in favour of the appellant. (b) Further, we have also been taken through the counter filed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem in W.P.No.1042 of 2009 to support the view that the order in S.R.No.241 of 2001 as claimed by the appellant does not exist in reality. Rather, the subject matter was dealt with in S.R.No.163 of 2001. (c) Further, it is also stated that in pursuance to the directions issued in the common order, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, has already undertaken inquiry by issuing notices to both the appellant as well as 1st respondent and other stakeholders and the matter is at advanced stage of inquiry and in that view of the matter, any indulgence at this stage is unwarranted and therefore urged to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have considered submissions advanced by either side and perused the record. 9 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 8. Parties to the lis do not dispute that Rowthugudem Village, where the disputed property is situated, falls within agency area and the same is governed by Regulation No.I of 1970. Once it is accepted that subject land falls under agency area, by virtue of Section 3(2)(i) of Regulation I of 1959, as amended by Regulation I of 1970, there is a clear prohibition for a non-tribe to either purchase or hold any parcel of land, and endeavour should be to ensure agency tracts should go to the hands of tribals only. However, there is no such restriction with regard to a tribe purchasing the property. The applicant claims to have purchased subject property from one Mr.Malladi Somasekhar Rao, under the agreement to sell dated 25.05.1999 and later, by virtue of order dated 14.07.2001 passed in S.R.No.241 of 2001, the subject property has been restored in his favour being tribal. Subsequently, appellant's name has also been entered in revenue records and he has issued pattadar passbook. 9. An attempt was made to challenge aforesaid order dated 14.07.2001 passed in S.R.No.241 of 2001, by one Smt.Seetha Mahalakshmi in W.P.No.16294 of 2006, which eventually came to be dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 30.11.2007. 1st respondent/writ petitioner is none other than son of said 10 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 Smt.Sitha Mahalakshmi. He has now raised controversy regarding the genuineness and existence of impugned order by filing the writ petition only in the year 2023. As could be seen from the records, all through the appellant had been consistently relying on the orders in S.R. No.241 of 2001 in various proceedings i.e., W.P. No.1042 of 2009, and even before revenue authorities, which the 1st respondent was very much aware of the same, besides contesting all those cases. Strangely, 1st respondent chose to challenge S.R. No.241 of 2001 only in the year 2023 and no sort of reasons were given explaining such inordinate delay for writ court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, particularly when it being appealable order. 10. As pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for Appellant, there are three important documents i.e., letter dated 09.09.2008, endorsement dated 10.09.2008 and instructions of District Collector dated 06.10.2019, which support the case of appellant. 11. On the contrary, the counter filed by Special Duty Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, in the writ petition, a divergent stand has been pleaded. The applicant has refuted the contents of the said counter by filing appropriate reply. The appellant has also 11 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 placed on record the registered WILL dated 17.03.1993, besides the agreement to sell, dated 25.05.1999 and the details of compensation received in pursuance to land acquisition whereby part of subject property came to be acquired. Therefore, in order to decide the genuineness or otherwise of impugned order, one has to examine all aforesaid aspects, particularly, when it has been pleaded that the original records of Jeelugumilli Mandal were destroyed in tribal and non-tribal agitation during the year 1996 as pleaded by the District Collector in his instructions dated 06.10.2009. 12. Once it is accepted that the subject land falls in agency area, in view of the specific prohibition contained in Regulation No.I of 1970, a non-tribal can neither acquire the property nor an assignment be made in his favour. 13. Firstly, the claim of 1st respondent to the subject property based on alleged family arrangement has to be looked into, even to arrive at prima facie opinion on title and nextly that whether the writ is maintainable on two counts i.e., not exhausting alternative remedy and delay, laches and not assigning any reason for the same. Without embarking on aforesaid legal aspects, we are of 12 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 the view that any enquiry qua genuineness of the order dated 14.07.2001 in S.R. No.241 of 2001 would be premature. 14. Therefore, we are of the view that learned Single Judge was not justified in remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent in writ petition for the purpose of conducting inquiry to ascertain whether the order dated 14.07.2001 passed in S.R.No.241 of 2001 has been passed by the erstwhile Officer and to be genuine. Further, even the view expressed to the extent that the said order appears to be concocted and does not relate to subject land cannot sustain, as none of the issues pointed out by us have been examined. This is for the reason that learned Single Judge has not taken note of the letter dated 09.09.2008, endorsement dated 10.09.2008 and instructions of District Collector dated 06.10.2019, which speak in favour of the appellant. 15. In view of the foregoing conclusion, we hereby set aside the impugned order and remand the writ petition to learned Single Judge to decide the same afresh. We further clarify that no final opinion has been expressed by us on merits and any observations made above are limited for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and the learned Single Judge is at liberty to 13 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.114 of 2026 decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the aforementioned observations. No costs. 16. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS Whether the order is: Speaking Non-speaking Reportable Non-reportable