P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner having possession of an extent of Ac. 4-77 cents of land of Muppinavarigudem (Nagavaram Mutha), hamlet of Buttayagudem, buttayagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. The said land originally was a part of Gutalat estate. Thonam Ramudu and Juttuga Subbaiah were cultivating this land. Zamindarini granted patta to the said cultivators on 1-7-1905. They partitioned the land between themselves and Ac. 4-77 cents of land has fallen to the share of Thonam Ramudu. After his death, his wife narasamma conveyed the said land to the father of the petitioner under all gift deed dated 9-3-1943. The petitioner s father cultivated the land during his life time and executed a gift deed on a stamped paper bequeathing the said land as marriage gift (Pasupukunkuma) to the petitioner. From 27-4-1995 the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. In fact, the Special Deputy Collector (T. W), K. R. Puram on the complaint of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (T. W.) II, K. R. Puram enquired into the matter under Section 3 (2) (a) of A. P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, and found that this land is never held by a Tribal at any time, and therefore, there is no contravention of the provisions of A,p. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The said order dated 31-8-1993 has become final.

( 2 ) WHILE so, the third respondent conducted a suo-motu enquiry under section 9 of A. P. (Scheduled Areas) Ryotwari Settlements Regulation II of 70 for granting Ryotwari Patta in respect of R. S. No. 849/1 which is the same subject-matter of which enquiry was conducted by Special Deputy Collector (T. W. ). The third respondent held that patta No. 16 and R. S. No. 849/1 of an extent of Ac. 4-77 cents is a part of Gutala Zamin estate which was taken over by the Government on 4-2-1953 under the provisions of A. P. (Andhra Area) estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is in the scheduled area and held by the petitioner who is a non-tribal, and as such, she is not entitled to a patta. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the second respondent. Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent was also dismissed. Hence this writ petition.

( 3 ) SRI M. Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the enquiry conducted by the Special Deputy Collector it is decided whether the land is held by a tribal or not and the finding that it was never held by a tribal has become final. Therefore, the said question cannot be reopened by the authority under Regulation II of 70, an enquiry contemplated for grant of a Ryotwari Patta. He relies on a decision of this Court in m. Gangaraju vs. Deputy Collector. In that case the learned Judge relying on the Judgement in W. P. No. 1328 of 1978 dated 29-8-1979, held as follows:"if it was intended that the jurisdiction of the authorities under the land transfer Regulation should cease to exist after the passing of the settlement Regulation in so far as the matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer under that Regulation are concerned, the legislature would have expressly provided to that effect. "the learned Judge holding that though the jurisdiction before the settlement authorities is more comprehensive in nature, finally held that mere pendency of the proceedings either before the Settlement Officer or the Director of settlements or the Board of Revenue, does not proclude the authority from making an enquiry under Section 3 of the Land Transfer Regulation. He also observed that in the event of any patta granted under Regulation 2 of 1970, it shall be conclusive and shall be binding on the respondents only to that extent.

( 4 ) IN this decision it is nowhere held that the enquiry held under Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 shall be final and conclusi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document