SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(AP) 59

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : O.CHINNAPPA REDDY, PUNNAIAH
S.Venkata Ramanaiah - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare Elwinpeta, Parvathipuram, Taluk: Srikakulam District - Respondent
Decided On : 03-29-76

The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation did not apply to the sale of land made prior to 1959, and the prohibition on transfer of immovable property by a member of a hill tribe did not apply to transfer by a non-tribal.

Headnote:

Land Transfer Regulation - Tribal Land - The court held that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation did not apply to the sale of land made prior to 1959, and the prohibition on transfer of immovable property by a member of a hill tribe did not apply to transfer by a non-tribal. The orders ejecting the petitioners from the lands were quashed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Agent to the Governor, which affirmed the order of the Deputy Collector ejecting the petitioners from the lands. The land in question was purchased from a non-tribal in 1919, and the authorities claimed jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Agent to the Governor, holding that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation did not apply to the sale of land made prior to 1959, and the prohibition on transfer of immovable property by a member of a hill tribe did not apply to transfer by a non-tribal.

Issues: Jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, applicability of the prohibition on transfer of immovable property by a member of a hill tribe.

Ratio Decidendi: The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation did not apply to the sale of land made prior to 1959, and the prohibition on transfer of immovable property by a member of a hill tribe did not apply to transfer by a non-tribal.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Agent to the Governor were quashed.

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE two petitioners question in this writ petition the order of the Deputy collector, Tribal Welfare, Elwinpeta and the order of the Agent to the Governor, Srikakulam, affirming the order of the Deputy Collector. The records placed before the Assistant Agent and the Agent show that the land in question was pur- chased from a non-tribal by name payyala Appanna, under a registered deed of sale of the year 1919. Pursuant to the registered deed of sale, the names of the purchasers were also entered in the survey and settlement register. The assistant Agent and the Agent to the governor purporting to act under the andhra Pracesh Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation have passed an order ejecting the petitioners from the lands. They gave a direction that the land should be dealt with under the assignment rules. Section 3 C2) (a) of the andhra Pradesh Soheled Area Land transfer Regulation gives jurisdiction to the authorities to eject the persons in possession of the property if they claim to be in possession of the property or if they are in possession under a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Regulation. In order that a sale may become mill and void under the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Regulation the sale has to be subsequent to 1959 The present sale was long prior to 1959 and therefore the land Transfer Regulation has no application. It was apparently thought that the sale was in contravention of the agency Tracts Interests and Land Transfer Act, 1917. Under section 4 of that act, what was prohibited was transfer of immovable property by a member of a hill tribe. It is a case of transfer of immoveable property by a non-tribal. Section 4 of Act 1917 also has no application.

( 2 ) THE writ petition is therefore allowed and the orders of the Deputy collector and the Collector are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Advocates fee Rs. 100/ -.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top