THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.30365 of 2014

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of 2^nd respondent in issuing second notice dated 25.08.2014 in LTR Case No.45/2010/JLP to petitioners pertaining to the land in an extent of Ac.2- 00 cents in Survey No.46/2 situated at Machinenipeta village, Julurpad mandal, Khammam District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and in violation of orders dated 01.07.2014 passed in WP No.4472 of 2010, and also in violation of provisions of A.P. Schedule Area Land Regulations 1/59 read with 1/70 (for short, ‘the Regulations’) and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to initiate any notices under Section 3(1) of the Regulations to the petitioners pertaining to the aforestated land.

2. Heard Sri S. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners;

and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the writ affidavit are that the petitioner No.1 is a non-tribal, and petitioner No.2 is a Scheduled Tribe community person belonging to Lambada community. The petitioner No.1’s father by name late Cherukumalli Venkaiah is the pattadar and owner of land bearing Survey No.46/2/A to an extent of Ac.2-00 cents situated at Machinenipeta village, a scheduled agency village of Julurpad mandal, Khammam District. His father, his brothers and 1^st petitioner constituted Hindu joint family. The above said land was in their possession till 15.05.2007. The 2nd petitioner by name Lakavathbalu died and the 2nd petitioner being the legal representative of lakavathBalu had become owner and possessor of the land. While so, on 15.05.2007, the petitioner No.2’s husband and petitioner No.3 purchased Ac.1-00 each in Survey No.46/2/A situated at Machinenipeta village, Julurpadmandal, Khammam District from petitioner No.1 for a valid consideration under Sale Deed and petitioner No.2’s husband and petitioner No.3 were put in physical possession and enjoyment of their respective lands on 15.05.2007. The names of petitioner No.2’s husband and petitioner No.3 are mutated in the Record of Rights. It is the case of the petitioners that the Regulations permit transfer of land in Schedule Agency Areas to tribals. Hence, the transfer between petitioners pertaining to the aforestated land cannot be interfered by 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 06.02.2010 in LTR Case No.45/2010/JLP to petitioners in respect of aforestated land on the allegation of transfer in violation of Section 3(1) of the Regulations though petition dated 29.12.2009 was submitted to the 2nd respondent pertaining to the aforestated land. It is the case of the petitioners that the notice dated 06.02.2010 in LTR Case No.45/2010/JLP issued by 2^nd respondent was challenged in WP No.4472 of 2010 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 01.07.2014 setting aside the above notice on the ground that the grievance was pertaining to Survey No.46/1 and not Survey No.46/2 and there is the problem of identification of land and the 2nd respondent enquiry is faulted. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the order dated 01.07.2014, the 2^nd respondent ought not to have issued similar notice dated 25.08.2014 pertaining to the same land of the petitioners in violation of the orders passed in writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners pray to set aside the notice dated 25.08.2014 on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the Regulations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would inter alia contend that the transfer of land between tribals is permitted under the Regulations, and the impugned notice ought not to have been issued as the order passed in the writ petition No.4472 of 2010 specifically observed that the land relates to Survey No.46/1 and not 46/2 and that there is a problem of identification of land and therefore the impugned notice is primarily in violation of