Once a patta has been granted after due enquiry under section 3 of the Muttas Abolition Regulation and where such order has become final, it shall not be open to the Authorities under the Land Transfer Regulation 1959 to ignore the said patta and take proceedings under Section 3 of the 1959 regulation or to hold that such person is liable to be evicted under the provision of the 1959 Regulation.

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was granted a lease in respect of the land concerned herein viz. , S. No. 52/3 of an extent of ac. 1-28 hectares in Kovvilapalem village, Anigera Mutta, in she year 1957, by the Muttadar. The Muttas were abolished by the Andhra Pradesh muttas (Abolition and conversion into ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 being regulation II of 1969, Sec. 5 ot this regulation provides for grant of Ryotwari patta to a ryot. It would be appropriate to set out the Section in full. "5. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta. Every ryot in a mutta shall with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all agricultural lands held by him, such lands having been in his lawful possession for a continuous period of not less than one year immediately before the notified date and have been properly included in his holding or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not lands in respect of which any other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under this regulation: provided that no ryot who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of any agricultural land unless : a) such ryot has been in lawful possession or occupation of the land for a continuous period of not less than eight years, immediately before the notified date ; and b) such possession or occupation was not void or illegal under the andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation, 1959 or any other law for the time being in force".

( 2 ) AFTER coming into force of the regulation, proceedings were taken under the Act and a ryotwari patta was granted to the petitioner in respect of the land concerned herein under the proviso to Sec. 5. It is stated that an appeal was preferred by the Muttadar against this order, but was dismissed. Thus the order granting patta in favour of the petitioner under Regulation II of 1970 became final.

( 3 ) ON the basis of a complaint made by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, tribal Welfare. Addatigala, the Deputy collector. Tribal Welfare, East Godavari district at Kokinada initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the Andhra pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land transfer Regulation, 1959 against the petitioner in respect of the said land and finding that the petitioner s possession is void under Sec. 4 of the Aqency tracts interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917, directed the petitioner s eviction and restoration of land to the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. Against the orders of the Special deputy Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Agent to the government, Kakinada who confirmed the orders of the Special Deputy collector aganist which the present writ petition is filed.

( 4 ) A reading of the order of the Special Deputy Collector shows that the following are the grounds for his conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be evicted, (a) Under Sec. 3 (b) of the Muttas Abolition Regulation all rights and interests created in or over the mutta before the notified date by the Muitadar shall cease and determine against the Government. Under this provision the lease granted by the muttadar in favour of the petitioner shall r. ease and determine as against the Government, on the date of abolition, (b) Under the Sanad, muttadar had no power to alienate, sell or lease out the lands in Mutta area. Hence the respondent who is a non-tribal and who is in possession of the land by virtue of the lease granted by the Mattadar must be deemed to be in unlawful possession, (c) No proper investigation was made by the authorities under the Muttas Abolition regulation 1969 into the above aspect before granting the patta and therefore the grant of patta by the Settlement officer under the 1969 Regulation, or the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Muttadar under that Regulation does not constitute resjudicata to bar the present proceedings under the 1959 Regulation; and (d) Since the 3rd respondent in the writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document