HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 17428 OF 2017

O R D E R:

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to G.O.Ms. No.19 Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department, dated 27-04-2017, by which the 1^st respondent dismissed the Revision confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 22-09-2007 in CMA No.193 of 2005 and the order of the 3rd respondent dated 26-05-2005 in LTR Case No.237/2001/ENK, which pertain to eviction of petitioner from the land in Survey No.212, Buradaraghavapuram Village, Enkur Mandal, Khammam District, admeasuring Acs.8-05 guntas.

2. Petitioner contends that said land was purchased by her late husband, Sri Laxminarayana, under a registered sada sale deed dated 20-08-1966 from the unofficial respondent; transaction involved non-tribals only and that no tribal interest was affected by the sale. It is stated, initiation of eviction proceedings under Regulation 1/59 read with 1/70 by the 3rd respondent was without jurisdiction and illegal as the eviction order dated 26-05-2005 was passed ex facie arbitrarily without affording an opportunity of being heard to her husband or any other party concerned. Petitioner further alleges that the Special Deputy Tahasildar (TW), Bhadrachalam, report dated 19-07-2001 was never supplied to the parties concerned and that eviction order did not specify reasons for such eviction.

2.1. Petitioner emphasizes that transaction occurred on 20-08-1966 and initiation of proceedings suo motu after such a long lapse of time lacks any legal sanction. After her husband’s death, she was unaware of the proceedings and subsequently, filed an Appeal before the 2nd respondent in CMA No.193 of 2005, which was dismissed on 22-09-2007. Revision filed before the 1^st respondent was also rejected by the impugned G.O. She contends that both the authorities failed to consider that no opportunity was given to her husband; transaction was solely between non-tribals, and that no claim or objection was raised by the unofficial respondent regarding sale transaction. It is asserted that sale deed remains valid in the absence of any denial by the vendor and that at no point was she directed to produce the original sale agreement, having submitted a photocopy while retaining the original.

2.2. Petitioner challenges the contention of the 1st respondent regarding non-production of pahanies, stating that all the revenue records, including pahutibai receipt books and cist receipts, consistently show the name of her husband, establishing her possession over the land. She reiterates that no tribal interest exists in the transaction, thus initiation of proceedings under the Regulations is unjustifiable and without jurisdiction.

2.3. According to petitioner, the 4^th respondent is attempting to evict her from the subject land, which would cause significant hardship, as she does not possess any other land for livelihood and her family depends entirely on agriculture. She disputes any assertion that she is claiming Acs.8-05 guntas instead of Acs.7-00, noting that boundaries and possession are the correct criteria for determining rights of a purchaser.

2.4. Petitioner states that the core issue is the validity of her husband’s purchase, which, being between non-tribals and predating the enactment of Regulation 1/59 read with 1/70, renders the proceedings without jurisdiction. Respondent authorities have been visiting the spot over the past week attempting to dispossess her. She emphasizes that validity of sale agreement cannot be adjudicated by Respondents 1 to 3, as such matters fall within the jurisdiction of civil Courts. She contends that government authorities are not competent to decide matters of family settlement and recording merits of the Will or family settlement as part of the impugned orders constitutes an action without jurisdiction.

3. Though number of adjournments were granted, official respondents have not come up with counter.

4. Heard Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Go