S.R.NAYAK, J. - (1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in Review W.P.M.P.No.8044 of 1995 in W.P.No.12196 of 1993 dated 31.7.1996.
(2.) The background facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal be noted briefly as follows: The appellant is a non-tribal and she purchased the lands in RS.Nos.82/1, 79. 83, 84/3, and 82/2 admeasuring Ac.9.50. 5.70, 2.74, 2.18 and 0.34 cents situated in Itikalakota village of erstwhile Polavaram Taluk, West Godavari District under registered sale deed dated 6.12.1967. The above lands originally belonged to one Sanyasi Naglu, a Scheduled Tribe and he sold the same by a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1938 in favour of one Kovvasu Parvalhamma, another tribal. While so, K.Parvathamma and her son Pottaiah, on their turn, sold away the land in favour of Punem Singaiah, another Scheduled Tribe under a registered sale deed dated 8.8.1963. The said Singaiah obtained permission from the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2285, dated 15.11.1967 to alienate the said lands in favour of non-tribals. Pursuant to the said permission, the said P.Singaiah sold away the said lands in favour of the writ petitioner who is a non-tribal under a registered sale deed dated 6.12.1967, as noticed above.
(3.) When the matters stood thus, on 16.1.1981, a show-cause notice was issued by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Eluru, who was succeeded by Special Deputy Tribal Welfare Officer, Kotaramachandrapuram in Bottayigudem Mandal, under Section 3(2) of the A.P.Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short' the Regulation') to the petitioner to show cause as to why she should not be ejected from the land. The writ petitioner filed objections contending that the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare has no jurisdiction to issue the said notice. However, on 31.1.1981, the Special Deputy Collector passed the order directing eviction of the petitioner opining that the sale transaction dated 8.8.1963 is only a benami transaction and the purchaser Punam Singaiah was a farm servant of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is the real purchaser. The appeal and the revision preferred by the writ petitioner against that order before the appellate authority and the Government were also dismissed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Government order in Memo No299/ F/83-3 dated 2.4.1993 preferred Writ Petition No.8044 of 1995. The learned single judge initially allowed the writ petition. However, on a Review WPMP filed by the contesting respondent, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal by the unsuccessful petitioner.;