Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gavireddy Perayya vs $ State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
Reserved on : 30.03.2026
Pronounced on : 02.04.2026
Uploaded on : 02.04.2026
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION Nos.37838, 37840, 37871, 37882, 37883, 37887,
37892, 37910, 37923 and 37929 of 2014
% 02.04.2026
W.P.No.37838 of 2014
# Gavireddy Perayya, S/o Appalanaidu,
Aged 65 years, Occupation: Agriculture,
R/o Pedagangavaram Village,
Ananthagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .... Petitioner
Versus
$ State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and 3 others. .... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri MMM Srinivas
! Counsel for the Respondents : Smt. CH. Swapna Priya,
Assistant Government Pleader for
Social Welfare
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (1998) 1 ALD 783
2) (2013) 3 ALD 516
3) 1983 (2) APLJ 96
4) 1984 (2) ALT 354
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION Nos.37838, 37840, 37871, 37882, 37883, 37887,
37892, 37910, 37923 and 37929 of 2014
# Gavireddy Perayya, S/o Appalanaidu,
Aged 65 years, Occupation: Agriculture,
R/o Pedagangavaram Village,
Ananthagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .... Petitioner
Versus
$ State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and 3 others. .... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 02.04.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the Order ? Yes/No
________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
3
APHC010751632014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 37838/2014
Between:
1. GAVIREDDY PERAYYA,, S/O APPALANAIDU AGED 65
YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE; R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM(V)
ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
4
vide proc. in LTR no. 10 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass such other
order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47333 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding
including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance
of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 10 of
2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest
of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 37840/2014
Between:
1. KOLLI DEMULLAMMA, W/O APPALANAIDU AGED 35
YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ZEENABADU (V)
ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
5
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 115 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 and pass such other
order.
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47335 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceeding including
dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the
orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 115 of 2009
dt.27-3-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of
justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
6
WRIT PETITION NO: 37871/2014
Between:
1. MIDATHANA @ MIDATADA SANNIBABU, S/O APPANNA
AGED 65 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O
PEDAGANGAVARAM(V) ZEENABADU PANCHAYAT,
ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
4. THE TAHASILDAR ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 129 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass such other
or further orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
7
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47372 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding
including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance
of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 129 of
2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest
of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 37882/2014
Between:
1. KINTHADA GURUVUSETTY, S/O YERUKUSETTY AGED 62
YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM (V)
ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
8
4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 76 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4.
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47383 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding
including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance
of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 76 of
2009 dt.27-3-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the
interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
9
WRIT PETITION NO: 37883/2014
Between:
1. THATIKONDA LAXMANA,, S/O YENKI, AGED 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O ZEENABADU (V)
ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 127 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass such other
order.
10
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47384 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding
including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance
of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 127 of
2009 dt.27-3-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the
interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 37887/2014
Between:
1. GAVIREDDY APPARAO, S/O APPALANAIDU AGED 58
YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE; R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM(V)
ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
11
4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 7 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4.
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47389 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding
including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance
of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 7 of 2009
dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of
justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
12
WRIT PETITION NO: 37892/2014
Between:
1. GAVIREDDY KANNAMMA, W/O APPALANAIDU AGED
60YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE; R/O
PEDAGANGAVARAM(V) ZEENABADU PANCHAYAT
ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 20 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4.
13
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47394 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding
including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance
of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 20 of
2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest
of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 37910/2014
Between:
1. KINTHADA CHITTIBABU, S/O LATE KINTHADA NARAYANA
AGED 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O
PEDAGANGAVARAM (V) ANANTHAGIRI(M)
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
14
4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 77 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47419 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceeding including
dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance of the
orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 77 of 2009
dt.27-3-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of
justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
15
WRIT PETITION NO: 37923/2014
Between:
1. RAPARTHI SANYASAYYA,, S/O BAPAYYA AGED 65 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE; R/O PEDAGANGAVARAM(V)
ANANTHAGIRI(M) VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 13 of 2009 dt.7-1-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and pass such other
orders.
16
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47432 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding
including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance
of the orders passed by the respondent no.3 vide LTR no. 13 of
2009 dt.7-1-2010, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest
of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 37929/2014
Between:
1. YEPARAPU MODAMMA W/O DEMUDU, OCC:
AGRICULTURE R/O ZEENABADU (V) ANANTHAGIRI(M)
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY, ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM, -
3. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AND SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR (TRIBAL WELFARE) PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
17
4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, AT
ANANTHAGIRI, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ
of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent no.3
vide proc. in LTR no. 128 of 2009 dt.27-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside
the said order and further direct the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner from his land and also direct the respondent no.3 to
issue title deeds in respect of the pattedar pass books already
issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4.
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47439 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings
including dispossession of the petitioner from the land in pursuance
of the orders passed by the respondent No. 3 vide LTR No.128 of
2009 dt.27-03-2010, pending disposal of writ petition in the interest
of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V HANUMANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
The Court made the following:
18
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION Nos.37838, 37840, 37871, 37882, 37883, 37887,
37892, 37910, 37923 and 37929 of 2014
COMMON ORDER:
1. W.P.No.37838 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.10 of 2009, dated
07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. W.P.No.37840 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.115 of 2009, dated
27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
3. W.P.No.37871 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.129 of 2009, dated
07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
4. W.P.No.37882 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.76 of 2009, dated
27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
5. W.P.No.37883 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.127 of 2009, dated
27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
19
6. W.P.No.37887 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.7 of 2009, dated
07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
7. W.P.No.37892 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.20 of 2009, dated
07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
8. W.P.No.37910 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.77 of 2009, dated
27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
9. W.P.No.37923 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.13 of 2009, dated
07.01.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
10. W.P.No.37929 of 2014 is filed questioning the orders passed
by Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in LTR No.128 of 2009, dated
27.03.2010 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
11. As the issue in all these Writ Petitions is similar, a Common
Order is being passed and the facts in brief are as follows;
20
12. Brief facts: The lands in question come under
Jeenabadu/Peddagangavaram agency villages in Chodavaram
taluk. The said villages were forming part of Madugula Zamin
ex-Estate. Subsequently, these villages were taken over along with
the main estate on 18.03.1953 and were notified for settlement
under Section 11(1) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari
Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 vide District Gazette dated
15.10.1976.
13. Pursuant to the said Notification, claims were made by the
tenants/ryots. The ex-mokhasadar objected to the same. After a
serious contest, the Settlement Officer allowed the claims of tenants
under Section 7(1) of Regulation 2 of 1970 treating them as “Ryots”
under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Basing on the
orders of the Settlement Officer in the year 1978, the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Ananthagiri had issued Pattadar Pass Books to the
petitioners in the said villages.
14. While so, one Sri Vinayaka Girijana Seva Sangham had filed a
Public Interest Litigation W.P.No.23401 of 2008 before the erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad for cancellation of
Pattas to non-tribes and for consequential action. The said Writ
21
Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to take
appropriate action.
15. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued to the Petitioners and
on the date of enquiry, orders of the Settlement Officer in various
cases under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement
Regulation 2 of 1970 were submitted to the Agency Divisional Officer
and Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) (FAC), Paderu i.e.,
Respondent No.3.. After perusing the order of the Settlement Officer,
Respondent No.3 cancelled the Ryotwari Patta and held that the
possession of the Petitioners was void under A.P. Scheduled Areas
Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of
1970 and consequently directed the eviction of the Petitioners.
Hence, these Writ Petitions are filed.
16. The counsel for the Petitioners Sri MMM Srinivas would
submit that the authority under Regulation 1 of 1970 could not have
cancelled the Ryotwari Pattas issued by the Settlement Officer under
Regulation 2 of 1970, more so in the absence of any rival claim by
any tribal. The counsel for the Petitioners pointed out the overriding
effect of Section 15 of Regulation 2 of 1970 and relied upon the
Judgments of this Court Pandi Ramulu v. Agent to Government,
22
E.G. District, Kakinada and Others1 and Sirigana Venkateswarlu
v. Agent to the Government and District Collector, East
Godavari District, Kakinada and Others2 in support of his
contentions.
17. The learned Assistant Government for Social Welfare
Smt.CH. Swapna Priya appearing for the Respondents argued in
support of the impugned orders passed by Respondent No.3 and
contended that the Pattas issued in favour of the Petitioners are
contrary to Section 3 of Regulation 1 of 1970 and that the Regulation
1 of 1970 has overriding effect. The Pattas in favour of the
Petitioners cannot be sustained and therefore the impugned orders
need not be interfered with.
18. The issue that falls for consideration is as follows;
Whether the impugned orders can be sustained?
19. Firstly, the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1
of 1959 as amended in 1970 would kick in, when there is transfer of
property by an individual as apparent from the very nomenclature of
the Regulation. The Section 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(a) are relevant and
extracted below;
1
(1998) 1 ALD 783
2
(2013) 3 ALD 516
23
“3. Transfer of immovable property by a member of a
Scheduled Tribe:- 1[(1) (a): Notwithstanding anything in any
enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts any
transfer of immovable property situated in the Agency tracts
by Scheduled Tribe, shall be absolutely null and void, unless
such transfer is made in favour of person, who is a member of a
Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be
registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies
Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) which is composed solely of members
of the Scheduled Tribes.
3(2)(a): Where a transfer of immovable property is
made in contravention of sub-section (1), the Agent, the
Officer or any other prescribed Officer may, on application by
anyone interested, or on information given in writing by a public
servant, or suo motu decree ejectment against any person in
possession of the property claiming under the transfer, after
due notice to him in the manner prescribed and may restore it
to the transfer or his heirs.”
20. The above provisions makes it apparent that only upon a transfer
of immovable property contrary to Section 3(1)(a), a cause of action
would arise to the issue order of eviction under Section 3(2)(a).
In the present cases, there was no cause of action as there was no
transfer of immovable property for the Respondent authorities to
pass impugned orders under Section 3(2) (a) of the Regulation
1 of 1959. Therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.
24
21. Secondly, in the impugned orders, it was held that the
Settlement Officer under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari
Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 had passed the impugned orders in
accordance with the said regulations, but still orders for eviction of
petitioners. The relevant portion of impugned order is extracted
below;
“The verification the orders of the Settlement Officer revealed
that the non tribals have filed their claims for sanction of Ryotwari
patta under Section 7 of the Regulation 2 of 1970 and the Settlement
Officer has considered the claimant as Ryot under Section 11 (a) of
the EA Act and issued orders u/s 7 (1) of the Regulation 2 of 1970
duly considering the documentary evidences submitted by the
claimants at the time of enquiry. The orders were not challenged by
Appeal before the Settlement Authority. No doubt the orders of the
Settlement Officer issued in the above cases are in accordance with
the provisions of Sec.7 (1) of the Regulation 2 of 1970, but while
issuing orders the Settlement Officer would have gone to the extent
of protecting the rights of the Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled Area
under the provisions of Land Transfer Regulation.”
22. The only reason for cancelling the Pattas was that the
Settlement Officer should have protected the rights of the tribals and
that the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959
as amended in 1970 have overriding effect. The reasoning is
perverse and outside the scope of Regulations.
25
23. Thirdly, Section 3(2) (a) of the Regulation 1 of 1959
contemplates initiation of action for eviction on three scenarios i.e (i)
on application by anyone interested (ii) On information given in
writing by a public servant or (iii) suo motu decree ejectment against
any person in possession in violation of Section 3(1) (a). In the
present case, the initiation of action was pursuant to an application
filed by an association by name Sri Vinayaka Girijana Seva
Sangham and the question is whether the association would come
within the definition of “anyone interested” to maintain an application
for eviction. In the opinion of this court, the term “anyone interested”
would mean only those persons having an interest in the land in
question and not those who do not claim any right or interest in the
land in question. Sri Vinayaka Girijana Seva Sangham does not
claim any right in the land in question and therefore, the very
initiation of proceedings is de hors the Section 3(2) (a) of the
Regulation 1 of 1959.
24. Fourthly, the question whether the authority under the
A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 could
cancel the Ryotwari Pattas issued under A.P. Scheduled Areas
Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 1 of 1970 fell for consideration
before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
26
Pandi Ramulu‘s case (1st cited) and this Court in the said Judgment
held that the Ryotwari patta granted under A.P. Scheduled Areas
Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 could be challenged only
by way of appeal and not under A.P. Scheduled Areas Land
Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959. The said was followed in Sirigana
Venkateswarlu’s case (2nd cited). The paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 are
extracted below;
“5. It is well settled that once patta granted u/s 7of
Regulation 2 of 1970 has become final, the same cannot
be set aside by resorting to the provisions of Regulation 1
of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970.
6. In Pandi Ramulu Vs. Agent to Government, E.G. District,
Kakinada and Others,wherein also patta granted in the year
1976 has become final as the same was not challenged by
way of any appeal, it was held as follows:
“Section 7 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement
Regulation, 1970 lays down that, every ryot in the Scheduled
areas to which the Regulation applies shall be entitled to a
ryotwari patta in respect of all cultivable lands and Section 9 of
the Regulation lays down that the Settlement Officer shall
inquire into the nature and history of all lands in respect of
which ryotwari patta is claimed and decide it. Whenever an
order under Sec. 9 is passed, if somebody feels aggrieved of
the order, he has a remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 9
under which an appeal can be filed. Once the matter is settled
27u/s 7, the only course open to the claimant against such
settlement is to file an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section
9. No fresh proceedings can be initiated after an order u/s 7
has been passed. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad on
this count.”
7. The above decision followed the earlier decision of this
Court in ”N. Appa Rao v. Agency Divisional Officer (2) 1988
(2) APLJ 9 (SNRC)”, wherein this Court held as follows:
“Patta was granted to the petitioner u/s 17(1) read with
section 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970. That order has become
final. Later on at the instance of the self same authorities
proceedings were initiated. The petitioner questioned the
jurisdiction of the authorities under Regulation 1 of 1959. It is
now well settled that when once patta has been granted u/s
7(12) read with 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970 and became final,
the possession cannot be said to be unlawful offending
section 3 of Regulation 1 of 1959. Therefore, the action of the
authorities is without jurisdiction.”
8. In view of the above well settled proposition, the
petitioner cannot be held to be in possession of the
subject land in contravention of Regulation 1 of 1959 as
amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, as he was already
granted ryotwari patta under the provisions of Regulation
2 of 1970.”
28
25. While considering a similar plea regarding Ryotwari patta
granted under Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969, this court in Javvadi Samba
Murthy Vs The agent to the Government, East Godavari District3
held that action under Regulation 1 of 1959 cannot be sustained.
The paragraph 7 and 8 are extracted below;
“7. Now in this case patta was granted to the petitioner under
Section 5. of the Muttas Abolition Regulation after due enquiry
which was also confirmed in appeal. It is significant to notice
that a patta can be granted under Section 5 of the Muttas
Abolition Regulation only if it is proved that (a) the ryot has
been in lawful possession or occupation of the land for a
continuous period of not less than eight years immediately
before the notified date; and (b) such possession or occupation
was not void or illegal under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled
Areas Land Transfer Regulation 195 or any other law for the
time being in force. In other words, before grant of patta under
this Regulation, the Authorities have to enquire into and be
satisfied that the possession or occupation of the ryot is not
void or illegal either by virtue of the 1959 Regulation or any
other law for the time being in force which undoubtedly includes
1917 Act as well. It is true that the Authorities under both the
Regulations are different. But the fact remains that the validity
and lawfulness of the petitioner’s possession and occupation
has been gone into before granting him patta under 1969
Regulation and this has been done by the Authority competent3
(1983(2) APLJ 96)
29in that behalf. In such a case it is not open to an Authority under
the Scheduled Areas Land Tran-sfer Regulation, 1959 to ignore
the patta granted under the 1969 Regulation and say that he
will go into the validity or otherwise of the petitioner’s
possession or occupation, as the case may be, afresh. In my
opinion, this can-not be allowed. It is true that Sec. 3 (1) of the
1959 Regulation opens with a non-obstante clause
“Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, rule or
law in force in the Agency tracts”, but it must equally be
remembered that the Muttas Abolition Regulation, which is a
subsequent regulation has been given an express overriding
power over all other laws by virtue of Section 34 of this
Regulation. In such a case, it is the duty of the Court to
reconcile both the provisions and the proper way of doing so, in
the circumstances, is to hold that once a patta has been
granted after due enquiry under section 3 of the Muttas
Abolition and where such order has become final, it shall not be
open to the Authorities under the Land Transfer Regulation
1959 to ignore the said patta and take proceedings under
Section 3 of the 1959 Regulation or to hold that such person is
liable to be evicted under the provision of the 1959 Regulation.
Permitting such a course would not only defeat the efficacy of
the patta granted under the 1969 Regulation, but would also
undo the object and purpose of Section 34 of the 1969
Regulation. There are no reasons to do so, more particularly
when the 1969 Regulation contemplates an enquiry into the
validity or other-wise of the possession or occupation of the ryot
claiming patta with reference to the 1959 Regulation or any
other law in that behalf. It would not be reasonable to hold that
in spite of such an enquiry being held by the Authorities under
the 1969 Regulation and in spite of their being satisfied that the
30ryots possession was not unlawful and the grant of patta by
them, the Authorities under the 1959 Regulation would be
entitled to ignore all this and proceed under the 1959
Regulation to evict such a ryot.
8. The view taken by me is sup-ported by a decision of
Chinnappa Reddy, J. In Sadanapalli Ramchanda and Others
vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Palwancha
District Khammam and others (1) 1978 (2) A.P.L J. 244.
Though that decision was rendered with reference to the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Mahals Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation,1969, the principle of the
decision squarely governs this case inasmuch as the said
decision is based upon section 33 of that Regulation which
correspond to Section 34 of the Muttas Abolition Regulation.
The learned Judge held that once there is a final order under
the Mahals Abolition Regulation in favour of the petitioner, no
proceedings for eviction can be taken against him under the
1959 Regulation.”
26. Similar view was also expressed in Chakka Balayyamma
and Ors Vs The Government of A.P4 at Paragraph 9.
“9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the following
terms: So long as the pattas granted under Section 5 of the
Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari)
Regulation, 1969 are not cancelled or revoked according to law,
no proceedings can be taken under Section 3 of the Andhra
Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959.
There shall be no order as to costs.”
4
(1984 (2) ALT 354)
31
27. In the light of the settled legal position, no proceedings under
section 3 of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations can
be initiated as long as the Ryotwari patta granted to the petitioners
under A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970
are not cancelled or revoked in accordance with law.
28. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are set-aside
and the Writ Petitions are allowed.
29. No order as to costs.
30. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 02.04.2026
IS
L.R. Copy be marked
32
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION Nos.37838, 37840, 37871, 37882, 37883, 37887,
37892, 37910, 37923 and 37929 of 2014
Date: 02.04.2026
IS
L.R. Copy be marked
