WP/27038/2009 of Paya Ankamma Vs The Special Deputy Collector, on 29 December 2009

ORDER:

The petitioner filed Case No.9/2007/MGR againstthe third respondent herein in the Court of the SpecialDeputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam, firstrespondent herein, under the provisions of A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (forshort ‘the Regulations’), for recovery of three guntas ofland in Sy.No.138/1 of Ashoknagar, Bandargudem Villageof Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. The case wasallowed on 24.08.2007 directing that the possession ofthe schedule property be delivered to the petitioner.

The petitioner states that though the Tahsildar,Manuguru, the second respondent, is under obligation toexecute the order passed by the first respondent, noaction has been taken thereof. She prays for appropriatedirections in this regard.

Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learnedcounsel for the petitioner, and the learned GovernmentPleader for Social Welfare for respondents 1 and 2.

The case filed by the petitioner for recovery ofpossession of land from the third respondent was allowedabout two years ago. The A.P. Scheduled Areas LandTransfer Regulations, 1959, and the Rules madethereunder, prescribes special procedure for adjudication of disputes in tribal areas. The Agent to Government orthe Agency Divisional Officer discharges the functions ofcivil Courts. The case filed by the petitioner is almost inthe nature of a suit for recovery of possession. Byfollowing the prescribed procedure, the first respondentallowed the case and on the strength of the orders passedtherein, the petitioner is entitled to recover possession ofthe property. The petitioner insists that the secondrespondent must take necessary steps by himself toinduct her into possession. It is not even stated that shehas filed an application or revision for this purpose.However, reliance is placed upon sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 ofthe A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Rules, 1969 (forshort ‘the Rules’).

Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to befollowed by the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officerwhile adjudicating the disputes brought before them underthe Regulations. Sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 of the Rulesindicates the manner in which the order passed forejectment or eviction is to be executed, which reads asunder: - “Where the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officeror the Officer referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3has decided that a person in possession shouldbe ejected under sub-section (2) of Section 3 heshall pass a decree and order in Form ‘F’ andsuch decree and order shall be executed by theofficer specified therein in the manner in whichany decree of ejectment by a competent Civil Court is executed.”

From this, it becomes clear that whenever an orderof eviction is passed by the authority concerned, a decreeis to be drawn in Form-F and the same shall beexecuted by the officers specified therein. In the instantcase, a decree in Form-F was drawn and the Tahsildar,Manuguru, the second respondent, was named as theofficer to take steps for restoration of possession in favourof the petitioner. However, that is not the end of thematter. The petitioner has to take the decree before thesecond respondent and make a representation orapplication for executing the same. The provisionextracted above mandates that the order shall beexecuted in the same manner in which a decree of a civilCourt is executed. During the course of execution, thenecessity to verify the third party claims, if any, may ariseand spot inspection may become necessary. There maybe cases where an altogether different party is inpossession and enjoyment of the property, though theadjudication may have taken place between twoindividuals some times, in collusion with each other. Insuch an event, the Tahsildar, the second respondent, hasto address the issue and resolve the same either byhimself or by taking the same to the notice of the authoritywho passed the order. All this would become possibleonly when an application is filed for execution.

The petitioner cannot expect the Tahsildar, the second respondent, to take all the steps without anyapplication being made by her. The very fact that thesteps to be taken by the second respondent wereequated to a decree passed by a civil Court discloses thata formal application needs to be filed and notices to theconcerned parties, be issued. Admittedly, the petitionerdid not make any such application.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving itopen to the petitioner to submit an application before thesecond respondent with a prayer to execute the decreepassed in her favour. As and when such an application isfiled, the second respondent shall take necessary steps,in accordance with law, duly issuing notices to theaffected parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________________

JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

29[th] December 2009

Note:LR copy be marked. (B/o) dr