The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Rule 49 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924.

ORDER:

Heard Sri B.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and party-in-person on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

2. The Petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

“…to issue a Writ or Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd Respondent in passing the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2024 in O.S No. 85 of 2021 (earlier O.S No. 398/2017 on the file of the Spl Asst Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadradri Kothagudem) decreeing the suit by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property of the plaintiff as ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and unfair, unlawful, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2024 in O.S. No. 85 of 2021 earlier O.S. No. 398/2017 on the file of the Spl. Asst Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobaile Court, Bhadradri Kothagudem and pass…”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD:-

A. This Court vide its order, dated 26.04.2024 passed orders in favour of the petitioners, and the same is extracted hereunder:-

The operation of the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2024 in O.S.No.85 of 2021 earlier O.S.No.398 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Assistant Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadradri Kothagudem is suspended for a period of eight(8) weeks from today.

The said orders are in force till date.

B. The Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and relevant para Nos.8, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 24 are extracted hereunder:-

8. It is submitted that both the Petitioners and Respondent No.3 are non- tribals and the scheduled property is situated at Bhadrachalam Town and it is notified agency tract, as per the agency area, after 03.02.1970 no non-tribe is entitled to purchase the lands in agency area neither movable nor immovable properties in agency tracts is void and the provisions of TS (AP) Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation are in contravention to the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) and under section 2 (g) of 1 of 1959 r/w 1 of 1970 is come into force. As per under section 2(g) reads as follows:

"Transfer means mortgage with or without possession, lease, sale, gift exchange, or any other dealing with immovable property, not being a testamentary disposition and includes a charge on such property or a contract relating to such property in respect of such mortgage, lease, sale, gift, exchange or other dealing."

As per Section 3(1)(a) reads as follows:

“Transfer of lands in Agency tracts by non-tribals to non- tribals. If sale deeds are executed after 3-2-1970 when Section 3(1)(a) has come into force and if possession of lands is delivered pursuant to the execution of sale deeds, the transfer is null and void. If agreements of sale were executed prior to 3-2-1970, the transfer is not hit by Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation. Transfer of lands in Agency tract by sale deeds executed after 3-2-1970 is hit by provisions of section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation are attracted of non-tribals. Ref:

Kakarla Nageswara Rao and others Vs. Government of AP rep. by its Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995(3) ALT 164.

However, the petitioners and Respondent No.3 are not entitled whatsoever in Agency tracts purchase of movable or immovable properties. Thus, there is a family dispute between the petitioners and Respondent No.3

16. It is submitted that as per the Grama Panchayat records in the year 2005, the said house No.9-2-65 was given, a sub- number i.e. 9-2-65/A, and also given assessment No.2274 in the name of Ramavajula Shivarama Shastry (respondent No.3 herein in WP) and h