IMPORTANT POINT
The applicability of A.P. Scheduled Area (Land Transfer) Regulations to properties purchased through Sada Sale Deeds executed prior to the enactment of the Regulations.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the order in G.O.M.S.No.9, Social Welfare(LTR.2) Department dt.31/1/2013 of respondent No.1 herein confirming the Order dtd. 20/6/2002 in C.M.A.No.24 of 2001 of respondent No.2 herein and also the order dtd. 11/4/1997 in LTR Case No.16/96/MKP of the respondent No.3 herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable contrary to the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Area (Land Transfer) Regulations and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to give effect to the same.

2. Heard Sri S. Madan Mohan Rao learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. During the pendency of the writ petition respondent No.5 died and the respondent Nos.6 to 30 were brought on record as legal representatives in I.A.No.1 of 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 has not granted any relief in favour of respondent No.5 and his legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.6 to 30 who are only proforma parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Acs.20.00 situated in Survey No.60, 63/E/1, 65/A, Mulakalapally village and Mandal, Khammam District and the same was purchased through a Sada Sale Deed dtd. 5/12/1969 from Madiraju Subba Rao, a nontribal, who is the grandfather of respondent No.5. He further submits that respondent No.3 initiated proceedings vide LTR Case No.16/96/MKP under A.P. Scheduled Area land transfer Regulations, 1959 Amendement 1/1970(hereinafter called as 'Regulations' for brevity) against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner appeared before respondent No.3 and produced all the documents including Sada Sale deed dtd. 5/12/1969 specifically stating that the provisions of Regulations are not applicable to the subject land. Respondent No.3 without considering the contentions and documentary evidence, erroneously passed the ejectment order on 11/4/1997. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed appeal CMA.No.24 of 2001 before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 also without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and also evidence on record dismissed the appeal by its order dtd. 20/6/2002, on the ground that the Sada Sale deed dtd. 5/12/1969 produced by the petitioner is an ordinary sale deed which is not duly stamped and registered under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and basing on the said Sada Sale deed the petitioner is not entitled to claim any rights over the property and further stated that the petitioner has not produced original land revenue receipts.

4. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Revision under Regulations before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 also dismissed the revision petition confirming the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 by way of GO.Ms.No.9 dtd. 31/1/2013.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner purchased the property through Sada Sale deed dtd. 5/12/1969 from the original pattadar by paying valuable sale consideration and the provisions of Regulations are not applicable especially as per the provisions of Sec. 24 of Transfer of Property Act. Respondent No.3 without properly examining the provisions of the Regulations passed the ejectment order. Respondent No. 3 erroneously held that in the pahanis pertaining to 1969-70 and 1970-71, there is a change of ink and writing through which the respondents' (therein) name is incorporated in occupation column. In such circumstances, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought to have summon the original records from the concerned authority, on the other hand, shifted the burden upon the petitioner, especially respondent No.3 initiated the LTR proceedings by exercising suo motu powers.

6. He further submits that as on the date of initi