The Special Deputy Collector, vs Enugula Shankaraiah,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2228 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2228 Tel
Judgement Date : 11 September, 2023

Telangana High Court

The Special Deputy Collector, vs Enugula Shankaraiah, on 11 September, 2023

Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                 WRIT APPEAL No.1617 of 2005

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

      Mr. P. Ram Prasad, learned Government Pleader for

Social Welfare appears for the appellants.


2.    This intra court appeal has been filed against an order

dated 18.01.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge by which

Writ Petition No.4753 of 1995 preferred by respondent No.1

herein has been allowed. In this order, the parties shall be

referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.

3. The petitioner entered into an agreement for sale on

06.01.1960 by obtaining necessary permission as required

under Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, in respect of the

lands measuring 0.14 guntas, Ac.1.03 guntas and 0.34 guntas

situate in Survey Nos.4, 6 and 7/2 respectively of Ballampur

Village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. The petitioner is in

possession of the same. The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas CJ & NVSK, J

Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

1959 Regulation) was amended by Regulation No.1 of 1970

with effect from 01.12.1963 by which the transfers from

tribals to non-tribals were completely prohibited. After coming

into force of the amended Regulation, the petitioner got the

sale deed executed in his favour on 23.03.1964 and is in

continuous and uninterrupted possession.

4. The Special Deputy Collector initiated the proceeding

under the 1959 Regulation for eviction of the petitioner on the

ground that the same is prohibited by the amended Regulation.

The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The

petitioner thereupon submitted a reply stating that the

amendment to the 1959 Regulation is prospective in nature,

and prior to the amendment of the 1959 Regulation, he had

entered into an agreement of sale on 06.01.1960.

5. The Special Deputy Collector however by an order dated

05.08.1977 ordered eviction of the petitioner from the lands in

question. The said order was affirmed by the appellate

authority as well as the revisional authority. The petitioner CJ & NVSK, J

thereupon assailed the orders passed by the competent

authority, appellate authority and revisional authority under

the 1959 Regulation by way of a writ petition. The learned

Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the

petitioner.

In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been

filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sale

deed was registered after the 1959 Regulation was amended

and therefore the transfer is prohibited by the amended

Regulation. It is further submitted that the decision of Full

Bench of this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddy and others v.

Collector, Adilabad District 1 has no application to the facts of

the case.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and perused

the record.

AIR 1982 AP 1 (FB) CJ & NVSK, J

8. The Full Bench of this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddy

(supra) while considering the impact of amended Regulation

has held that the amendment to the Regulation, which

prohibits the transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals, with

effect from 01.12.1963, is prospective in nature. It has further

been held that whether an agreement is in consonance with the

provisions of the Stamp Act cannot be considered by an

authority under the provisions of the 1959 Regulation while

passing an order of eviction.

9. Section 2(g) of the 1959 Regulation, which defines the

expression 'transfer', is quoted below for the facility of

reference.

'Transfer' means mortgage with or without possession, lease, sale, gift, exchange or any other dealing with immovable property, not being a testamentary disposition and includes a charge on such property or a contract relating to such property in respect of such mortgage, lease, sale, gift, exchange or other dealing."

10. From a perusal of aforesaid Section 2(g) of the 1959

Regulation, it is evident that it includes an agreement for sale

also. The petitioner had admittedly entered into an agreement CJ & NVSK, J

of sale on 06.01.1960. The 1959 Regulation was amended with

effect from 01.12.1963 prohibiting the transfer from tribals to

non-tribals. The aforesaid amendment of the Regulation is

prospective in nature and therefore does not apply to the case

of the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner's case is not

covered by the provisions of the amended Regulation. The

learned Single Judge therefore has rightly set aside the orders

passed by the competent authority, appellate authority and

revisional authority.