THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION Nos.35276 and 36277 of 2016 AND WRIT PETITION No.18622 of 2017

COMMON ORDER

W.P. Nos. 35276 of 2016 and 36277 of 2016 have been filed challenging the orders passed in the Revision Petition vide G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated 07.10.2016. W.P. No. 18622 of 2017 has been filed challenging the Panchanama dated 27.10.2016, conducted by Respondent No. 5– Tahsildar for resumption of land to the Government pursuant to the orders passed in the Revision Petition, i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated 07.10.2016.

In view of commonality of issue, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. For reference and discussion, the averments in W.P.No.35276 of 2016 are taken.

2. The Petitioner challengesthe order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the 1^st respondent-Revision Authority vide G.O.Ms.No. 43, Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department. This order allowed the appeals filed by unofficial Respondents, thereby setting aside the order passed in CMA No. 110/2003 dated 28.07.2007 by Respondent No. 2 and dismissing the Petitioner’s revision with respect to land admeasuring Acs. 2-23 gts in Sy.No. 161/2, situated at Chunchupalli village, Kothagudem Mandal. The impugned order further directed the said land to be taken into government custody, which the Petitioner contends is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.

2.1 The Petitioner, an agriculturist, purchased the land in Sy.No.

161/2 (Acs. 2-23 gts) through an unregistered sale deed dated 24.04.1969 from Mr. Katakam Koti Reddy, a non-tribal pattadar. This transaction was supported by Pahanies from 1955-56 to 1957-58 reflecting the vendor’s name, and the Petitioner has been in uninterrupted cultivation since the purchase. In 1984, land acquisition proceedings were initiated (Ref: A4/7105 of 76 dated 23.07.1974 and 23.07.1984), including dispossession. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 13182 of 1984 before this Court, and this Court quashed the acquisition notification on 23.01.1986 due to delayed publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

2.2 In 2012, regularization proceedings commenced based on a report dated 18.12.2012 by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), Bhadrachalam. Notice under Form-E was served in accordance with Rule 10 of the A.P. (SA) LTR Rules, 1969. The Petitioner submitted substantial documentary evidence, including the Sale Agreement of 1969, land revenue receipts for multiple years, Pass Book, Pahani extracts from 1968 to 2013, and relevant judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court, establishing that the transfer predated the Regulation’s applicability (01.12.1963 / 03.02.1970). These documents confirmed continuous possession and clarified that the transaction was between non-tribals, hence outside the scope of the Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations.

2.3 LTR Case No. 355/85/KGM was initiated based on a petition dated 18.07.1985 by Late Bhukya Lachu regarding lands in Sy.Nos. 161/1, 162/2, and 163/4—excluding Sy.No. 161/2. However, in 1993, a second petition by the same individual led to LTR Case No. 654/93/KGM, including Sy.No. 161/2. Despite contradictions between the two petitions, the cases were clubbed without procedural fairness or cross-examination opportunity, violating principles of natural justice.

2.4 Respondent No. 3, while passing the impugned order on

25.03.1996, failed to summon relevant records or substantiate claims with documentary proof. The order was based on assumptions and unsupported oral statements by the original petitioner, ignoring settled principles of evidence. Additionally, the order incorrectly mentioned land extents— listing only Acs. 5-11 gts instead of the actual 9-00 acres involved in the two cases—and unlawfully included Sy.No. 161/A and 161/2 without issuing Form-E notices for those lands.

2.5 Respondent No. 2, acting as the appellate authority, upheld the order dated 25.03.1996 in a perfunctory manner through CMA No. 110/2003 dated 28.07.2007, without addressing the