The provisions of Section 3 (1) of Regulation I of 1959 as amended by Regulation II of 1963 or Regulation I of 1970 cannot be given retrospective effect so as to affect transfers made prior to the counting into force of the regulation or its amendments by Regulation II of 1963 or Regulation I of 1970.

RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Writ Petition W. P. No. 4204/77 has been referred to a Full Bench by our learned brothers Madhava Rao and Raghuvir, JJ. in view of the conflict of decisions. The other matters have been directed to be posed along with W. P. No. 4204/ 17 on the ground that common questions arise in all the matters. As the main case referred to the Full Bench is W. P. No. 4204/77, we shall refer to the facts in that case to determine the questions that arise for consideration on this reference.

( 2 ) THE dispute in this write petition relates to Ac. 3. 12 cents in S. No. 8, Ac. 0. 17 cents in S. No. 33 and Ac. 13. 02 cents in S. No. 34 of Nandgaon village situated in Adilabad Taluk, which is a scheduled area. The lands in S. Nos. 33 and 34 were purchases under an agreement to sell dated 10-5-1955 by Abdul Nadem, the third petitioner herein from one Jaithu, a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner 1 and 2 are said to be cultivating the said lands as tenants of the third petitioner. The land in S. No. 8 was purchased under an agreement of sale dated 8-3-1963 by the brother of 1st petitioner from the 4th respondent, the daughter of Jaithu. They filed as petition under Section 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation I of 1959 (hereinafter called the Regulation") before the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Adilabad alleging that the transfers of the lands under the agreements of sale contravene of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation, and that they were entitled to be put back in possession of the said lands. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, held that the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioners was not effected by a registered document as required by Sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act, and that they did not acquire any title to the same, and that the possession of the petitioners over the said lands was unlawful and unauthorised, as the transfers were made in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Regulation, and accordingly, directed the petitioners to be evicted from the lands and the respondents 3 and 4 were directed to be put in possession of the said lands. This order was confirmed on appeal preferred by the petitioners to the District Collector and Agent to the State Government, Adilabad. The petitioners field the above write petition W. P. No. 4204/77 seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the Special Deputy Collector and the Collector, Tribal Welfare as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the provisions of Regulation I of 1959 came into force in Telangana area on 1-2-1963, and that it is not retrospective in operation and would not affect transfers made by the tribals to non-tribals prior to the coming into force of the said Regulation in Telegana area, and that even otherwise, the petitioners would be entitled to the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, and that the orders of eviction passed by Special Deputy Collector and the Collector are illegal and devoid of jurisdiction.

( 4 ) A counter-affidavit was filed by the Special Deputy Collector stating that as the transfer of the suit lands worth more than Rs. 100. 00 not having been registered as required by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, the petitioners did not acquire any title to the suit lands, and that even otherwise, the transfer of the lands by tribals to non-tribals contravened the provisions of the Regulation, and therefore, the petitioners were liable to be evicted and the possession of the lands restored to the triabals.

( 5 ) WHEN the writ petition came up for hearing before our learned brothers Madhava Rao and Reghuvir, JJ. , it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the transfer of the land having taken place prior to 1-2-1963, ie. before the coming into force of the Regulation, it would not be affected by the said re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document