Kavalkar Isthari Adilabad Dist ... vs State Of A.P Hyd 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4442 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                             W.A.No.1798 of 2008

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

13.02.2007

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20254 of

1997.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

appellants/writ petitioners were claiming to be the owners and in

possession of lands in Survey Nos.58/A, 58/AA, 58/E and 58/EE

of Kanargaon Village, Wankidi Mandal, Adilabad District, which

are admittedly situated in agency tracts. Proceedings were

initiated against the appellants/writ petitioners and the Special

Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Utnoor, Adilabad District, after

making due enquiry, by order dated 24.06.1993, declared the

possession of the appellants/writ petitioners, in respect of the

lands in question, as in contravention of the provisions of the

A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 (for short

'Regulation 1 of 1959') and accordingly their ejectment was

ordered. An appeal was preferred by the appellants/writ

petitioners and it was also dismissed by a detailed order dated

28.02.1994. Even the revision was also dismissed. The

appellants/writ petitioners came up with a plea that the lands

were purchased by them prior to enforcement of Regulation 1 of

1959. However, no material was brought to the notice of the

learned Single Judge. In those circumstances, the writ petition

was dismissed.

This court has carefully gone through the documents on

record. There is no document to establish that the lands in

question were purchased prior to the enactment of Regulation 1 of

1959. Undisputedly, the appellants/writ petitioners were found to

be in possession of the lands in question in contravention of the

provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 and therefore, the learned

Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. This

court also does not find any reason to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 17.12.2021 JSU