WP/21102/2024 of Korsa Ramachandraiah, Vs The State of Telangana, on 9 January 2026

ORDER:

In this Writ Petition, a direction is sought to the 3.d respondent - Tahsildar to pass orders on Application dated 06-07 -2024 and earlier Application dated O5-03 -2024 for executing the orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eturu Nagaram in case No. A/20/LTR/cm/21 2 daLed 2l-Ol-2O22, which was, in turn, endorsed by the appellate authoriqr in CMA No. 3 of 2022 dated lg 71.2023, and to declare non-implementation of the order thus far as illegal, arbitrary and contravention of the judgment rendered by -- \ qlqFq this Court in Mannillapalli Chinakotesuara Ro''t Reaenue OfJicr, Buttagudern Mandall.

2. The case of petitioner is that PaszLr Village of Govinda Rao Peta Mandal of Mulug.r notified as a scheduled area under Presidential Otc per Section 3 of Regulation 1 / 59 and its amenc immovable properties cannot be transferred from I non-tribal alter 03-02 197O. There is a total I'r transfer of immovable property between tribe to n:l to 1959. In spite of said Regulation, non-tribes er scheduled area by purchasing the land and the being supervised by the authorities constituted untl 2.1. In the present case, it is stated, palta Sri Mittapalli Venkateswara Rao who is no mol transferred in favour a non tribe Pannala Vajran respondent herein and family members totalling 1 contrary to Regulations. Petitioner being a SchedtLl a resident of local village, filed a complaint be respondent - Special Deputy Collector for registr case. Accordrngly, it was registered as LI2O/LTR, between the non tribal parties at his instance- o Mandal a Nagaram District is er 195O. As menL I /7O, on-tribai to rhibition of r-tribe prior : settling in ;ame is not :r the Act. land of one e now, was ma, the 6th in number, :d Tribe and :ore the 2"d rtion of LTR cYt l2o2r-2 fhe primary ' 2oos (5) ALD 126

J authority, on perusal of the record, by order dated 22.01.2022 declared that possession and enjoyment by the non-tribes of the subject land is in contravention of Section 3(1) of AP (TS) Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation ll59 and its amendment I l70. Accordingly, Acs.2O.OO in Survey No. 1O9/C situated at Pasara Nagaram Village was directed to be taken over from non-tribes and further the Tahsildar was directed to dispose the persons from the subject land. The Appeal hled against the orders passed by the Tahsildar, CMA No. 3 of 2022 was filed and the same was dismissed by order dated

78. O7.2023.

3. On receipt of notice, the 66 respondent hled counter stating that Writ Petition is not maintainable as petilioner does not have locus to frle the Application under Rule 7 of Regulation 1 of 2Ol7 of LTR Rules, and he is not an applicant or complainant or a transferor, therefore, in no way related to the land. Petitioner has no iocus to file even E.P. before the 3'd respondent as per the law laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 29134 of 2019, dated O7.O9.2O21; as per Rule 7(4) of LTR Rules, 1969, if the request for enforcement for decree was made, it is mandatory for the Tahsildar to cause notice on the judgment debtor, consider his objections and take tt--\+.i \

\ steps by following the judgment ir Mannillapa Koteshlaclor Rao's case (supra). If the Apl' enforcement of decree is not filed within tu'c' judgment debtor is entitled to notice and opp required under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, however, i I case, the Applicant hled an Application under Rule I

3.1. It is stated, the applicant who fi1ed cont the 2"d respondent by name Sri Mittapalli Venk;r died long back and petitioner is not the affected pa t he is not entitled to file an Application bef respondent. It is further stated, the 2nd respor.l order against the 6th respondent, hence, she carri: before the 5h respondent and the same was l

18. O7 .2023; thereafter, ejectment order was not inLl it is not possible in the absence of trP Application is taking steps to file Revision against the Ejet:1 before the Government of Telangana under Section 1159. The 6h respondent reiterates that t:n implementation of ejectment order as per the judS;r to supra must be followed by frling E.P. by a decr but not by third parties. In this case, petitioner ii holder and even if the government wanted to takc c al lli Chinna Lcation for years, the rrtunity as the present rlaint before eswara Rao [y, therefore rre the 3'd lent passed I the matter smissed on lemented as rnd that she nent orders 6 of the LTR rrcement o[ rent referred :e older only not a decree /er the lands /

after frling E.P. by the decree holder, thereafter, the tralsferor is not entitled to have the land restored to him as per the Full Bench judgment of. Ehis Court in Vernana Sonta.lamnta a. Dg.Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rannltachodann ram2 - 3.2. It is also stated, the 6h respondent purchased the property in 1957 i.e. much prior to commencement of Regulation 1/59 as amended by l/7O, hence any transaction that took place prior to commencement of Regulation 1/59, initiation of LTR proceedings are not valid as is not hit by Section 3 of the LTR as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dg.Collector a. S. Venkatq Ramir,naiahs, hence, the entire proceedings of the 2"d respondent dated

22. O12O22 are liable to be set aside.

4. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 6ft respondent.

5. On perusal o[ the pleading and submission of both the partiei, it is to be noted, subject land is in Schedule Area. The contention of the 6d respondent that petitioner is not an affected party and her name is not reflected in the revenue '? AIR r993 Ap 312 (FB) 3 (199s) 6 scc s4s t \

records and Sri Mettapalli Venkateswar Rao who I)i ssed away long back has not raised any objection are not ter able since' admittedly, the land in question ts situated in a Srl edule Area which cannot be transferred to a non-tribal as it is loverned by the statute, i.e. Scheduled Area Land Transfer t ules 1969' When the primary authority and appellate authoritl' lrrived at a finding that the iand is situated in a Schedule Ar: r' a duty is cast upon them to execute the order passed by thel r as well as to ensure strict implementation of the Act for th: object for which it has been enacted. As per the judgemen t this Court tn Manniltapalli Chinakotesu'o.rcr (supra), under Rule 7 (41 of the 1969 Rules' tl restoration of possession passed by the Agent or Divisional Ofhcer or other Ofhcer has to be ex': decree for ejectment passed by a civil Court lt is a that a non-tribal cannot be allowed to enjoy posses: any benefit from the land assigned/earmarked t'; tribals which is the case here ln the case on hanc Revenue Records reflect names of non-tribal and I by the affected parties on the ground of tecl- r however there is no effective rebuttal by responder to the parties, the order passed in CMA has beconL' 'endcred by Rco's case e order for the AgencY 'utcd like a lso observed ion or derive clusively for , admittedly, CMA is hled icalities but -s. According hnal and no further proceedings have been instituted against orders passed by the appellate authority.

6. [n view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that official respondents are under obligation to implement the orders as brought to their notice by petitioner in its letter and spirit.

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, directing the ofhcial respondents to forthwith execute the order of the primary authority dated 22.01.2022 as conltrmed by the appellate authority in CMA No. 3 of 2022, dated 18.07.2O23. No costs.

8. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. d/-P.PONNA KRISHNA ' ISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

8.

9. SA PMK

J

1. The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare DePartm ,D Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana at HYde The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Etturunag The Tahsildar, GovindraoPet Mandal, Mulugu District The Agent to the Government (District Collector), Govin Mulugu District. The Froiect Officer, ITDA, Etturunagaram, Mulugu District' r*o c,Sjsio C p FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telanqana at Hyderabad. (OUT) one iC to SRI ir V.RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI M.SRINIVAS RAO, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies B.R.Ambedkar d. atam. draopet Mandal, lM.

HIGH COURT DATED:0910112026

ORDER

WP.No.21102 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \l \ j (j z1l'N2[28 c J- S \T \ ( a\ a/