ORDER

Petitioner challenges the action of the 4 th and the 5 th respondents, who allegedly issued Pattadhar passbooks and title deeds to the unofficial respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 act, as amended in Act 1 of 1970.

2. The 1 st petitioner asserts his status as a member of Scheduled Tribe and claims absolute ownership and possession of agricultural land measuring Ac. 18.00 gts. in Survey No. 84, Jhari Village, Adilabad District, inherited from his grandfathers and his possession was duly reflected in revenue records. It is stated that the land, symbolically reserved for construction of temple of goddess named PER SATTHIK. However, objections were raised by unofficial respondents, presenting title deeds and passbooks to challenge the petitioner's rights. The 5th respondent, when questioned, allegedly failed to provide a satisfactory response regarding the unauthorized land transfer to unofficial respondents.

It is the case of petitioners that the unofficial respondents came for wood business and encroached the petitioners’ land and got the said land registered in their favour in collusion with Respondents 4 and 5 and pattadar passbooks were issued without proper inquiry, despite not being entitled to tribal land. Misuse of "Rythu Bandu" scheme is also alleged. It is the clear case of petitioners that the unofficial respondents do not belong to Tribal Community and they belong to Backward classes.

3. The 5 th respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit, refuting the petitioners’ claim and urging the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the petition for lack of merit. It is stated that the revenue records confirmed the unofficial respondents as legitimate pattedars and possessors of the suit land and the lineage from Smt. Gangu Bai to Bhashkar Rao, who is husband and father of Respondents 7 and 8, is detailed, discrediting the petitioners’ claims. This respondent admitted installation of PER SATHIK wooden goddess in Survey No. 84, describing the Tribal Community festival during Sankranthi and the objection by pattedars against permanent structures. It is stated that they never objected to perform festivals during Sankranthi every year by tribal community. It is stated that as per Pahani for the year 2004-05, the unofficial respondents are pattadars and possessors inherited from their father who acquired the same from their grandmother and as per the instructions of the Government of Telangana, all pattadars are made applicable Rythu Bandhu scheme. In view of the aforementioned facts, the respondent urges the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri Dasarla Srisailam and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

5. The 5 th respondent, in the counter affidavit, categorically stated that as per the revenue records, Respondents 6 to 8 are pattadars and possessors of the subject land. Prior to that, the land stands in the name of Bhaskar Rao as per the pahani of 1987-88 who inherited the same from his mother Smt. Gangu Bai who was the pattadar from theen sala pahani for 1955-58. It is true that the wooden goddess called PER SATHIK is installed in Survey No. 84 by erecting small thatched shed on the corner to an extent of Ac.0.01 guntas and every year, all Pendur families celebrate the festival during Sankranti and when they tried to construct permanent structure over the land by collecting donations, the pattadars ie. Respondents 6 to 8 objected the same but they never objected performance of festival during the Sankranti by tribal community.

6. In the light of the clear and categorical averments and the lineage stated by the 5th respondent, this Court is of the view that petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought.

7. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismis