( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of india being aggrieved by an order dated 6-1-2004 made in O. S. No. 24 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, east Godavari at Rajahmundry.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in much dispute. The petitioner-plaintiff is a non-tribal. He laid the above suit seeking to declare the action of the respondent-defendants in putting seals to the plaint schedule property on 1-6-1999 as illegal, invalid and ultra vires of their powers and for a consequential mandatory injunction to the respondent-defendants to remove the seals put by them and also to award an amount of rs. 50,000/- towards damages. While so, the 5th defendant, who is holding the office of the 3rd defendant (3rd respondent) filed i. A. No. 562 of 2000 to decide the issue whether the civil Courts jurisdiction is barred as the property is situated in a scheduled area and by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 1573, dated 30-10-1972 the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (for short the Act) have not been extended to the scheduled areas ? as a preliminary issue.

( 3 ) AFTER elaborate consideration of the matter, the Court below held that in view of Section 1 (3) of the Act read with g. O. Ms. No. 1573, dated 30-10-1972, the civil Courts are not conferred with jurisdiction in respect of the scheduled areas and as such, the suit, in respect of which the dispute relates to Agency Area and the cause of action also arose in the same area, cannot be entertained by the Civil Court; therefore, returned the plaint for being presented before the proper Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

( 4 ) SRI M. S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, submitted that in view of the law laid down by a division Bench of this Court in ashifaquddin v. Mohd. Azizuddin, AIR 1978 AP 354, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that even otherwise, the notification issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1573, Home (Courts-A)Department, dated 30-10-1972 is ultra vires the provisions of Section 1 (2) read with Section 1 (3) of the Act insofar as granting exemption of application of the provisions of the Act to the scheduled areas is concerned. He also submitted that the judgment rendered in Second Appeal No. 420 of 1988 cannot be looked into, since the same was rendered by a learned Single judge of this Court. The learned Single judge could not have held that the judgment of the Division Bench reported in ashifaquddins case (supra) is per incuriam for the reason that the notification in G. O. Ms. No. 1573, dated 30-10-1972 was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench in the said case.

( 5 ) PER contra, Sri K. Balagopal, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent, contended that the A. P. Civil Courts Act is a creature of the legislature. Unless the statute itself permits, no civil Court can entertain the matter of this nature. The Act is not extended to the scheduled areas of the State; therefore, whether the parties are tribals or non-tribals has no relevance. The relevant fact is the location of the property and the cause of action that arose in the matter. In fact, there is a presumption that the entire land situated in the scheduled areas is held by the tribals. Therefore, to prevent the exploitation of tribals by filing the suits, by one non-tribal against the other non-tribal in collusion with each other to deprive the tribal etc. , the Act has not been extended to the scheduled areas. As such, the lower Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of india and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and also other material made available on record.

( 7 ) AT the outset, I am of the opinion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document