Back
2003 Supreme(AP) 499
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY
N.Durga Rao - Appellant
Versus
Special Deputy Collector (Tribal welfare), Kota Ramachandrapuram W.G.Dist. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-31-03
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation, 1959 – Contravention - Resumption of land - Petitioners in both writ petitions have purchased certain agricultural lands in tribal area - According to them purchases were not hit by provisions of A. P. Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation as amended by regulation - It is also their case that on an earlier occasion Special had submitted an application before Special Deputy Collector - Respondent herein alleging that purchases made by petitioners were contrary to said regulations - Applications were taken up by respondent and orders were passed on merits holding that purchases made by petitioners were not in contravention of any proceedings and said order became final - Held, Contention of counsel for respondent that petitioner did not respond to notice becomes hardly significant inasmuch as it was for special Deputy who has brought to notice of respondent to place relevant material and for respondent who has discussed same - Viewed from any angle this court does not find any basis for respondent to have entertained complaint and passed order - There exists a remedy by way of appeal could not come in way of this court to entertain writ petition for reason that orders challenge suffered from non-application of mind as well as lack of competence - Very participation of respondent in proceedings is shrouded with mystery - These circumstances impugned orders are set aside - Writ Petitions allowed
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions arise under similar factual and legal context. Hence they are disposed of through a common order.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in both the writ petitions have purchased certain agricultural lands in tribal area. According to them the purchases were not hit by the provisions of the A. P. Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by regulation No. II of 1970. It is also their case that on an earlier occasion the Special tahsildar had submitted an application before the Special Deputy Collector - the 1st respondent herein alleging that the purchases made by the petitioners were contrary to the said regulations. The applications were taken up by the 1st respondent and orders were passed on merits holding that the purchases made by the petitioners were not in contravention of any proceedings and the said order became final. The 1st respondent had taken up proceedings once again on the complaint said to have been made by the Special deputy Tahasildar (Tribal Welfare) against the petitioners herein as SR. Nos. 28/2000 and 26/2002 respectively. In both the matters the 3rd respondent herein viz. , t. Gangaraju figured as 1st complainant. The 1st respondent passed orders dated 18-12-2002 in the said SR. Nos. , and directed resumption of land of the petitioners holding that the purchases made by them were in contravention of the regulations.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submits that once the Special Deputy tahasildar had initiated proceedings against the petitioners and the 1st respondent had adjudicated, holding that the purchases made by the petitioners were not in contravention of the Regulations it was not open to the 1st respondent to entertain the proceedings once again. He submits that the name of the 3rd respondent was used only to circumvent the operation of principle of res judicata; and despite the same, a reading of the order would disclose that the complainant before the 1st respondent was none other than the Special Deputy tahasildar. He has also made submissions on the merits of the matter. He placed before this court a notice issued by an advocate on behalf of the 3rd respondent stating that the 3rd respondent never figured as complainant in any proceedings.
( 4 ) SRI K. Bala Gopal, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that it was the 3rd respondent, who pursued both the matters and having received the same, the special Deputy Tahasildar had forwarded them to the 1st respondent, who in turn has treated the complaint as having been filed by the Special Deputy Tahasildar. He disputes the correctness of the notice said to have been issued on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
( 5 ) HEARD the learned Government pleader for Social Welfare.
( 6 ) THROUGH the impugned orders, the 1st respondent has directed the resumption of the land of the petitioners, holding that the purchases made by them were in contravention of the Regulations. It is a matter of record that the 1st respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioners in SR. No. 84/85, on the complaint made by the Special Deputy Tahasildar. Through orders dated 14-3-1995, he held that the purchases made by the petitioners did not contravene the Regulations.
( 7 ) IT is true that Regulation 3 enables not only the Special Deputy Tahasildar but even any thifd person to submit complaints about the contravention of the Regulations. This court in Gaddam Raghavulu v. Agent to Govt. (Dist. Collector) E. G. District, Kakinada and others held that the orders passed in the proceedings initiated under the Regulations should not be treated as res judicata in subsequent proceedings, if the latter were initiated by a different party, or by the same party, on the basis of any further material.
( 8 ) IN the present case, a reading of the impugned order discloses that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint made by the Special tahasildar. The contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd resp
