Laxmi Bai, Adilabad Dist. vs The State Of Ts.,Social ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1596 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                     WRIT APPEAL No.1262 OF 2017

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

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

11.03.2016

          passed        by     the      learned       Single   Judge   in

W.P.No.12278 of 2007.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ

petition was preferred by Bandi Lakshmavva and Laxmi Bai

stating that late Bandi Bhumanna, who was husband of the

first writ petitioner, was the owner of land admeasuring

Acs.5.00 situated in Survey No.13/A of Marlapalli Village, Boath

Mandal, Adilabad District, and after the death of her husband,

she succeeded to the property and the second writ petitioner

(appellant herein) is her daughter-in-law. Her husband, who

was a non-tribal, purchased the said land on 29.04.1965

through an ordinary sale deed from one Peeraji, who was also a

non-tribal. It was further contended that the A.P. Scheduled

Area Land Transfer Regulation (for short "the Regulation") came

into force with effect from 01.12.1963, as per the Regulation,

transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal was prohibited and

there was no restriction for transfer of land from non-tribal to

non-tribal. It is also an undisputed fact that the Regulation was

amended with effect from 03.02.1970 prohibiting even transfers

from non-tribal to non-tribal. The facts further reveal that the

Special Deputy Collector initiated suo motu proceedings and

passed an order on 22.12.1984 holding that the sale of land has

taken place on account of registered sale deed dated 18.04.1977

and therefore, the transfer of the land was held to be bad in law.

An appeal was also preferred in the matter by late Bandi

Bhumanna, husband of the first writ petitioner, and the

appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by an order dated

26.06.1985. Thereafter, a revision was preferred in the matter

before the State Government and the same was also dismissed

by an order dated 20.02.1991. The writ petitioners thereafter

preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.35005 of 1998 and the

same was disposed of by an order dated 20.02.1991 remanding

the matter for fresh consideration to the revisional authority.

The revisional authority, after hearing the parties, has passed a

fresh order dated 17.05.2007 dismissing the revision.

Challenging the same, the writ petitioners came up before the

learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge also

dismissed the writ petition.

The issue involved in the present case is whether the

transfer of land in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner was hit

by the Regulation as amended with effect from 03.02.1970.

Undisputedly, the amendment, which came into force with effect

from 03.02.1970, prohibits transfer from non-tribal to non-

tribal also. In the present case, the sale deed which was

brought on record is dated 18.04.1977 which is a subsequent

sale deed. No agreement of sale nor any sale deed prior to 1977

was brought on record by the appellant/writ petitioner. Not

only this, the husband of the first writ petitioner, during his life

time, who appeared before the original authority, made a

categorical statement on 20.10.1984 that he has purchased the

land only in the year 1977 through a registered sale deed dated

18.04.1977 and in those circumstances, the revisional authority

was justified in dismissing the revision holding that the

transaction was in contravention with the provisions of Sub-

section (1) of Section (3) of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer

Regulation 1959 read with Regulation 1/1970. In the

considered opinion of this Court, 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.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

29.03.2022 JSU