Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 489
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.
Mandava Rama Krishna & Others
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 15688 of 2011 & 19085 of 2013
Decided On: 17-04-2014
For the Petitioners:S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Counsel for K.R. Prabhakar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Learned Additional Advocate-General, J. Ramachandra Rao, J. Satyaprasad, Learned Counsel.
A pure or abstract question of law, unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India---Article 372---Under Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India, a "law in force" shall continue subject to the provisions of the Constitution. The words "subject to the other provisions of the Constitution" mean that if there is an irreconcilable conflict between the pre-existing law and a provision or provisions of the Constitution, the latter shall prevail to the extent of that inconsistency---Inconsistency must be spelt out from the other provisions of the Constitution and cannot be built upon the supposed political philosophy underlying the Constitution.
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ---Section 11---A decision of a competent Court, on a matter in issue, may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties. The previous decision, on a matter in issue, alone is res judicata. The reasons for the decision are not res judicata. A matter in issue between the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the claim of right from its very nature depends upon proof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto---A pure or abstract question of law, unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue.
Result-Writ Petitions dismissed.
The action of the respondents, in treating Mangapet Mandal, Warangal District as a “Scheduled Area”, and in reserving all offices of Gram panchayats therein in favour of the Scheduled Tribes, is questioned in these Writ Petitions as being arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and Para 6 (1) of Schedule V to the Constitution of India, and as contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.1413 of 1973 dated 30.11.1973.
It is the petitioners’ case that Mangapet mandal consists of 23 revenue villages and 80 Gram panchayats which were not declared as “Scheduled Areas” by the President of India under Para 6(1) of the V Schedule to the Constitution; the respondent authorities had reserved the offices of local bodies, in the said villages and Gram Panchayats, in favour of the scheduled tribes in the elections conducted in the year 2006; the validity thereof was challenged in W.P. No.14068 of 2006 wherein an interim order was passed staying the election notification; subsequently W.P. No.14068 of 2006 was dismissed by order dated 03.08.2006, on technical grounds; some of the villagers of Mangapet mandal were earlier issued notices under Regulation 1 of 1970; W.P. No.1413 of 1973, filed by them to restrain the respondents from applying the A.P. Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended in the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer (Amendment) Regulation, 1970 to their immovable properties situated in the said villages, was allowed by this Court by order dated 13.11.1973 holding that the villages, in which the petitioners therein owned lands, were not notified in the Presidential order; W.A. No.486 of 1974, filed thereagainst, was dismissed on 08.07.1974; from 1959 to 2006, all local body offices in Mangapet mandal were open to the general category, subject to reservation by rotation; the Nizam of Hyderabad State, by notification dated 21.04.1950, divided Hyderabad State into 16 Districts; thereby all the 23 villages, now in Mangapet Mandal, were deleted from Palvancha Taluq, and included in Mulug Taluq; the President of India issued notification dated 07.12.1950, under Para 6(1) of the V Schedule to the Constitution, excluding these 23 villages in Mulug Taluq from the list of Scheduled Areas; all the 23 villages in Mangapet Mandal were in Mulug Taluq on the date of issuance of the Presidential order dated 07.12.1950; while specifying other villages in Mulug Taluq as “Scheduled Areas”, these 23 villages were not notified as such in the Presidential Order; the action of the respondents in treating these villages as “Scheduled Areas”, and in reserving local body offices in favour of the scheduled tribes, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the right to participate in the elections, and the right to elect, is a statutory right which cannot be denied to the non-tribals; and the power to declare an area, as a “Schedule Area”, is a constitutional power vested in the President of India, and cannot be exercised by any of the respondent authorities.
In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 in W.P. No.19085 of 2013, it is stated that Mangapet mandal consists of 23 revenue villages which are organised into 18 Gram Panchayats; the Tribal Area Regulation, 1359 fasli was enacted for administration of the tribal areas in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad; notification dated 16.11.1949 was issued declaring the tribal areas in the State of Hyderabad; the last entry of Warangal District records the villages of Taluq and Samasthan of Palvancha as tribal areas, with the exception of Palvancha, Borgamphad, Ashwaraopeta, Dammapeta, Kaknur and Nellipak villages; as a result all the subject 23 villages, which were then in Palvancha Taluq, became part of the tribal areas in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad; in view of Article 372 of the Constitution of India areas, which were notified by the Government of Hyderabad as tribal areas, continue to remain as such;
