THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.33022 of 2023

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, briefly stated as per the writ affidavit, is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.5- 08 guntas in Survey No.30 of Rolmamda Village, Naradigonda Mandal, Adilabad District, by inheritance from his ancestors; and the 2^nd respondent-Additional Agent to Government, vide order dated 04.10.2012 in LTR Appeal No.A4/LTR/326/2002 directed restoration of the subject land to Government custody, by confirming the order dated 29.06.1996 passed by the 3^rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector (TW) in TWA2/2084/84.

1.1 It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent (and even the 3^rd respondent) has not issued any notice, or afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders. It is his further grievance that even as per the evidence before the 2^nd respondent-appellate authority, the 4^th respondent (Mr. Rai Chand) did not file an appeal and that the 4^th respondent stated that he was a former servantand the petitioner is the pattadar of the subject land and the 4^th respondent is shown as cultivator.

1.2 It is the contention of the petitioner that the LTR proceedings were initiated based on a Staff Survey and there was no illegal transfer of land between non-tribals even as per the evidence of respondent No.4.

2. Heard Mr. Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions in line with the writ affidavit, essentially contends that the petitioner acquired the subject property by inheritance from his ancestors and the name of petitioner’s father was reflected in the Pahanies for 1954-55, and the land is not hit by the Land Transfer Regulations; and the 3^rd respondent and 2^nd respondent without giving any opportunity nor examining the revenue records, passed the impugned orders which are unsustainable in law. It is also contended that the impugned LTR proceedings were initiated based on a report submitted by the survey staff without following due procedure. It is also contended that one Murarsingh, S/o Dev Singh filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent-Additional Agent, whereas the 4^th respondent herein is a respondent before the 3^rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, and the 4^th respondent has categorically deposed before the 2^nd respondent-Additional Agent that he has not filed any appeal and that he was a former servant of the petitioner and the petitioner is the owner as per revenue records and there is no illegal sale transaction between the parties. Learned counsel filed a Memo dated 23.07.2025 stating that Murarsingh has expired in 2023 as per the statement of the villagers.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, in support of the impugned order, contends that in response to the Show Cause notices issued by the 3^rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector (TW), the respondents attended the Court and deposed that N. Rajeshwar is the pattadar and Rai Chand (the 4^th respondent) purchased the subject land for Rs.10,000/- and that the 3^rd respondent verified the documents available in the record and come to the conclusion that there is transfer of land between non-tribals, and the same constitutes violation of Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959 (Amended Regulation 1 of 1970), and therefore the 3^rd respondent has directed for taking over of the land into Government custody, and the 2^nd respondent has rightly affirmed the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent. Learned Government Pleader further contends that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of revision before the Government, and the petitioner may be relegated to avail the statutory remedy of revision.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that the impugned Order dated 04.10.2012 reveals that the 4^th respondent (Mr. Rai Chand) depos