Decided on February 24,1972



Vaidya, J. - (1.) Writ Petition No. 347/71 is filed by five petitioners three being the properties of Albaka and Cherla estates and petitioners 4 and 5 being the properties of Sarangapani and Dandupeta free-hold villages. These petitioners challenge the validity of Andhra Pradesh Mahals ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Regulation, 1969, ( hereinafter referred to as the Mahals Regulation ). The petitioners in writ petition No. 357/71 are the Muttadars of certain Muttas in Yellavaram taluk of East Godavari District. The 24 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 358 of 1971 are also Muttadars of different villages in Ramapachodavaram taluk East Godavari District, whereas the petitioner in writ petition No. 1200 of 1971 is a muttadar of six villages in Yellavaram taluk of East Godavari District. The Muttadars aforementioned have challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Regulation of 1969 ( hereinafter referred to as the Muttas Regulation. )
(2.) Both the aforesaid regulations have been made by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh with the assent of the President in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-paragraph 2 of the paragraph 5 of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners in al the writ petitions have challenged the authority of the Governor in passing the aforesaid two regulations. We will first consider the question so far as the validity of the two regulations, relating to the powers of the Governor, together. Some other questions have been raised in the individual writ petitions to which we will advert at the proper stage.
(3.) Detailed arguments, as to the validity of the Muttas regulation, which would also apply to the Mahals Regulation, were advanced by Sri Dhanurbhandu learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petition No. 357 of 1971. His main contention is that there is no specific power given to the Governor either for abolition of the Muttas or Mahals. Unless a specific power is given the Governor is not competent to enact the aforesaid regulations. His contention is that under Article 244 of the Constitution, the provisions of 5th Schedule, under which the two regulations have been made, apply to the administration and control of the scheduled areas and scheduled tribes and does not give any power to the Governor to pass regulations of the nature, as they are outside the ambit of the expression " administration and control " of the scheduled areas and scheduled tribes used in Article 244 of the Constitution. He further contends that under sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 5 of the fifth schedule of the Constitution, under which the regulations have been made, the power of the Government to make regulations for the peace and good Government of any areas in the State, which is for the time being schedule area is limited to clauses a, b and c of sub-paragraph 2. In other words his contention is that though the first part of sub-paragraph 2 is wide in its terms, it is controlled by second para of sub-paragraph 2, in which clauses a, b and c occur.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.