THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.18191 OF 2021

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:- “... to issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order, declaring the orders No.ST/D1/594/2021 - Revision Case No. D1/42/2013 dated 30-06-2021 passed by the 2nd respondent -Special Tribunal Nagar kurnool as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders …”

2. Heard Mr.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing on-line, Mr.H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the grandfather of petitioner No.1 namely Avula Babu was the pattedar of agricultural lands, admeasuring Acs.8.14 gts in survey No.1152 situated at Dararam (Dharawaram) Hamlet of Lingala Village; that Dararam (Dharawaram) village is a notified agency Village due to which the said lands can neither be sold nor transferred to non-tribals; that the petitioners are the notified scheduled tribes; that after the death of the grandfather of petitioner No.1, vide proceedings No.B/988/98 dated 09-4-1998 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioners, being the grand children of Avula Babu were granted the mutation proceedings and that their names were recorded in the revenue records like Form 1 of a RoR, Pahanies etc, as pattedars and possessors of subject lands; that they were also issued the pattedar pass books and title deeds. While so, respondent No.5, came during the year 2009 with fabricated proceedings stating that the M.R.O., Lingal issued the alleged File No.ROR/53/2003 dated 10-01- 2004 as if he purchased the lands from one Potendla Beesaiah, who had no concern or right over the said land. It is also stated that there cannot be any sale transactions with respondent No.5 and that if there were any such transactions, they were void; that the petitioners filed Appeal vide Appeal Case No.K/ROR/1388/2009 before respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool challenging the alleged proceedings No.ROR/53/2003 dated 10-01-2004 and the same was allowed vide order No.K/ROR/1388/2009 dated 04-2-2018. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.5 filed Revision before the Joint Collector, Nagar Kurnool in Revision Case No. D1/42/2013 which was re-numbered as No.D1/594/2021 by the Special Tribunal. Vide order dated 06-02-2021 the said Revision was dismissed; that before the said order was communicated, the case was reopened at the instance of respondent No.5 and decided in favour of respondent No.5 vide orders dated 30-06-2021 and thereby the order passed by the R.D.O. dated 04-02-2018 were set aside. Assailing the same, the petitioners preferred the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of fair hearing, before passing the impugned order and that no documentary evidence was available on record to show that the father of the petitioners had sold away the said property to respondent No.5. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 by filing counter affidavit contends that the subject land in Sy.No.1152 is situated at Lingala Revenue was not a notified as an agency area; that the agency rules have no application to the subject land; that the petitioners have not raised the said ground before the appellate authority i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer in his Appeal No. K/ROR/1388/2009 dt:04-02-2013 nor before the Revisional authority i.e., the Special Tribunal/Joint Collector in the Revision Case No. D1/42/2013 nor in Case No.ST.D1/594/2021. Therefore, the petitioners raising the said plea, in this Writ Petition, is impermissible under law; that as per the li