2007 Supreme(AP) 786

Andhra Pradesh High Court
KANTHETI RAMA KRISHNA, LATE ANTARVEDI - Appellant
Versus
AGENT TO THE GOVERNMENT, EAST GODAVARI AT KAKINADA - Respondent
Decided On : 08/09/2007
Advocates Appeared :
M.SUBBA REDDY

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation, 1959 – Section 3, 4 – Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1979 – Section 3 (2) (a), 3 (1) (a) – M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Revision - Seeking suspension of the orders of the Agent during the pendency of the revision - Respondent again conducted enquiry and passed orders ordering ejection in the meanwhile, the father died and the petitioner came on record as his legal representative aggrieved by the orders petitioner filed CMA which was disposed of by the first respondent by order is assailed in this writ petition inter alia contending that in view of the confirmation of the sale by the District Registrar, kakinada said sale in favour of Satham, is not illegal and that the subsequent sale by the vendees of Satyam in favour of the petitioner before coming into force of regulation is not hit by the provisions of the regulation second respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. While tracing chronology of the events leading to filing of the writ petition it is alleged that the sale in favour of Satyam by the cooperative society without obtaining permission from the Agent to the Government under section 4 of the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1979 is null and void and therefore the subsequent sale in favour of petitioners father is not valid is also alleged that the attachment of the property to Lotha Atchi Reddy without obtaining permission from the Agent under section 6 of Act 1 categorical averment is made that permission of the Agent was not obtained while transferring the land in favour of Satyam –Held, Petitioner placed strong reliance on to contend that after coming into force of has no application to the transactions took place prior to coming into force of Regulation submission is devoid of any merit for reasons more than one. Section 10 of Regulation of 1959 lays down that the provisions of the Regulation shall not affect (i) any transfer made or sale effected in execution of a decree before the commencement of Act 1 of 1917, any transfer made or sale effected in execution of a decree after commencement of Act 1 of 1917 and before commencement of Regulation only if such transfer of sale was valid under the provisions someone has to come within purview of saving clause under Section 10, this has to be necessarily shown that the sale or transfer of immovable property by a member of hill tribe to a non-tribal is valid under Act was also considered by the Supreme Court in After referring to Section 9 and section 10 Apex Court laid down as under not in dispute between the parties that the said Act of 1917 did not apply to Telangana area. Consequently reference to Section 9 in connection with lands situated in Telangana area becomes irrelevant. Similarly Section 10 which effects savings in cases where the earlier Act of 1917 which had applied stood repealed by Section 9, also becomes irrelevant so far as areas which were earlier governed by the Act of 1917 are concerned, even for them, court fail to appreciate, how Section 9 can be pressed in service by learned senior counsel for the appellant authorities to cull out an implied retrospective effect of the Regulation – Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.