V.V.S. RAO, J :-Introduction and Background :

The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are residents of different villages in either Khammam District or East Godavari District in State of Andhra Pradesh. Some Taluks/Mandals in these two districts are scheduled areas having been statutorily notified as such long back. All the petitioners do not belong to Scheduled Tribes (in this order they are referred to as non-tribals). They own agricultural lands in their villages. They allege that either they or their ancestors or predecessors-in-title purchased from other non-tribals under agreements of sale and other transfer documents. In some cases, they also claim that they were granted ryotwari patta under relevant law.

2. The jurisdictional Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) (SDC, for brevity) initiated action under Section 3(2) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation No.! of 1959), as amended by Regulation I of 1970 (the Regulation, for brevity). All the petitioners were ordered to be ejected from the respective lands and land in their o possession was directed to be restored to r the Government or persons belonging to t Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners then filed 7 appeals under Section 3(3)(a)(ii) of the Regulation before the concerned District Collector and Agent to the Government. Agent to the Government transferred the cases to Project Officer of Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDAs), who is Additional Agent to the Government. In some of the cases, Additional Agent I dismissed the appeals upholding the orders of SDC. In some cases, action was dropped by original authority, but on appeal by the tribals or Special Deputy Tahsildar (SDT, for brevity), Additional Agent ordered notice of hearing. In some cases, Additional Agent declined to condone the delay in filing appeal or declined to grant stay of orders of original authority. A writ petition is also filed challenging the order of the Agent transferring the case to Additional Agent. In this varied background, all the petitioners filed these writ petitions challenging Notification of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.193, Revenue (SCR.I) Department, dated 17.4.2002, whereby and where under Project Officers, ITDAs are designated as Additional Agents.

Facts in brief

3. Taking W.P. No.14138 of 2005 as an illustrative case, the facts may be noticed. The petitioner is in possession of land admeasuring Acs.2.04 guntas in survey No:312 situated at Janampet Village of Pinapaka Mandai of Khammam District. He claims possession of the property from 1962, through his grandfather, Devuni Subbaiah @ Devuni Subba Reddy, whose name is allegedly incorporated in revenue accounts like 10(1) Adangals, Pahani Patrika for 1962-1963. Korsa Laxmaiah (fourth respondent in W.P. No.14138 of 2005) gave a complaint to SDC, Paloncha, alleging that the petitioner encroached his lands to an extent of Acs.3.00 in Survey Nos.312 and 313 and prayed for restoration of the same. SDC, Paloncha, dismissed the said L. T .R. Case on 16.7.1992, recording finding that there is no transfer of land contrary to the Regulation. Laxmaiah then filed appeal before the Additional Agent, Bhadrachalam in C.M.A. No.12 of 2004. The same was allowed directing the MandaI Revenue Officer, Pinapaka (MRO) to take possession of the land from petitioners and assign it to Laxmaiah. Therefore, the writ petition is filed challenging the Government Notification vide G.O. Ms. No.193 and for a writ of mandamus invalidating the order of Additional Agent in C.M.A. No.12 of 2004.

4. In W.P. Nos.11731, 11732, 11733, 14138,23892,4660 and 26029 of 2005; 462 and 13775 of 2006 also, the Government Notification along with the orders of the Additional Agent are impugned.

5. In W.P. Nos.13800, 18900,23097, 26412, and 26417 of 2006; 1427, 1959,2232, 2268, 1620,21632,2688,3951,4258,4334, 4494,4854,3642,6004 and 6316 of 2007, the civil miscellaneous appeals filed either by SDT or the concerned tribals