Goda Raghuram, J.
1. Smt. Gadde Nagabushanamma assails the Memo N0.2167/F1/83-5, dated 20-10-1993, of the 1st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the connected records and seeks invalidation of the impugned proceedings in the circumstances and for the reasons set out herein.
The factual scenario on the undisputed facts:-
a) Cheberolu Dharmaiah was the earlier owner of wet land in an extent of about Ac.1.15 cts., situate in Kannayagudem h/o Buttayagudem village. The said Dharmaiah was a holder of the land under Patta No.15. On subsequent survey, numbered RS No.661/3 the land was found to be in an extent of Ac. 1.62 cts.
(b) The petitioner alleges to have purchased the said land from Dharmaiah under an agreement of sale dated 20-9-1968, paid the entire consideration and took delivery of possession on the date of the said agreement of sale (this fact is disputed in the proceedings).
(c) Both Darmaiah and the petitioner are non-tribals and the land is situated in a scheduled area in Polavaram Taluk.
(d) Subsequently Dharmaiah died issueless.
(e) Bultayagudem village is a former estate village, taken over by the State under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 (for short '1948 Act').
(f) Pursuant to the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement" Regulation, 1970 (for short 'Regulation 2 of 1970'), all the lands in this scheduled area were surveyed. The petitioner applied for a ryotwari palta under the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970, which was rejected by the Settlement Officer in SR No.570 of 1977, dated 30-9-1977. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed AP No.375 of 1977 before the Director of Settlements.
(g) The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1959, was amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 which came into force w.e.f. 3-2-1970 (for short 'Amended 1959 Regulation'). Section 3(1)(a) of the Amended 1959 Regulation statutorily declares null and void any transfer of immovable property situate in the Agency tracts by any person whether or not such person is a member of Scheduled Tribe, unless such transfer is made in favour of a person who is a member of Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, which is composed solely of members of Scheduled Tribes. This provision is immunised by a non obstinate provision qua any enactment, rule or law in force in the agency tracts. Section 3(1)(b) enacts a presumption that until contrary is proved, any immovable property situate in the agency tracts and in the possession of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe shall be presumed to have been acquired by such person or his predecessor-in-possession through a transfer made to him by a member of Scheduled Tribe.
(h) The land was registered in favour of the petitioner through a registered sale deed No.994, dated 21-7-1971 (subsequent to coming into force of the Amended 1959 Regulation).
(i) Appropos the provisions of the Amended 1959 Regulation, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare) Eluru, filed a complaint before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Eluru, under Section 3 of the said Regulation to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of the land in the agency village and obtained it by sale from Ch. Dharmaiah of Buttayagudem through a registered sale deed No.994, dated 21-7-1971 of the Sub-Registrar Office, Jangareddygudem. The complaint sought a declaration that the above sale transaction is null and void and that the petitioner be evicted from the said land.
(j) By the order date 9-10-1980 in SR No.71 of 1981, the Special Deputy Collector (TW) Eluru passed orders holding that the transfer of the land to the petitioner is null and void in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the 1959 Regulation and directed the petitioner's eviction from the said land. Having regard to the fact that the transferor C. Dharmaiah died without leaving behind any legal heirs, the order, applying the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Amended 1959 Regulation declared the land as vested in the Government and the Tahsildar, Polavaram, was directed to take action for assigning the land as per the provisions of the Amended 1959 Regulation, and the Revenue Inspector, Jangareddygem, was directed to take possession of the land. In coming to the said conclusion, the Special Deputy Collector (TW) considered the plea of the petitioner that she entered upon the land in 1968 pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 20-9-1968. The plea the the said unregistered agreement of sale on a white paper validly entitles the petitioner to the continued ownership of the land, in view of the transfer having been made prior to the Amended 1959 Regulation, i.e., prior to 3-2-1970, was rejected on the ground that no proof was adduced by the petitioner, the agreement deed was not filed and no proof was adduced to the effect that the land was taken possession of before the execution of the document and further no land revenue receipts were produced in proof of the petitioner's version that she is cultivating the land in question since 1968. In the circumstances, applying the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Amended 1959 Regulation, the transfer in favour of the petitioner was declared null and void and the land was declared as having vested in the State, as afore-stated.
(k) The petitioner's appeal Andhra Pradesh No.375 of 1977, preferred against the orders of the Settlement Officer dated 30-9-1977 in SR No.570 of 1977, rejecting the petitioner's request for patta under the Regulation 2 of 1970, was allowed by the Director of Settlement and appellate authority by order dated 6-4-1981 and the petitioner was granted a ryotwari patta inter alia for the said land. No proceedings having been taken to challenge the said appellate order, the said order became final and a ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the petitioner under the Regulation 2 of 1970.
(1) Aggrieved by the orders of the Special Deputy Collector (TW) Eluru, dated 9-10-1980 in SR No.71 of 1980, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Agent to the Government, West Godawari District, in SRA No.22 of 1980. In the appeal the petitioner pleaded the fact of her being granted a ryotwari patta consequent on the proceeding date 6-4-1981 in A.P.No.375 of 1977, as also the plea regarding the agreement of sale of the year 1968 and contended that in the light of these facts, the provisions of the Amended 1959 Regulation do not apply and her possession of the property is not liable to be disturbed. On an examination of the record, the said appellate authority duly noted the fact that the petitioner has filed neither the agreement of sale of 1968 nor the registered sale deed dated 25-9-1971 and in consequence held that the the petitioner's contentions are untenable. On the above conclusions the appeal was dismissed by orders date 4-9-1983.
(m) Against the said orders the petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Government under Section 6 of the Amended 1959 Regulation. By a detailed order the revision petition was dismissed by the orders dated 20-10-1993 confirming the reasons and conclusions of the primary and appellate authorities.
(n) Consequent on interlocutory orders during the pendency of the appeal and revisional proceedings under the Amended 1959 Regulation, orders of this Court in WP No.9447 of 1983 filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal proceedings in SRA No.22 of 1980 and the interim orders dated 8-2-1994 in the present writ petition, the petitioner continued in the possession of the land in question.
2. Contentions of the Petitioner:
(a) In view of the over-riding effect given to the provision of the Regulation 2 of 1970 by Section 15 thereof, in view of Regulation 2 of 1970 having come into force w.e.f. 1-7-1971, subsequent to the Amended 1959 Regulation (3-2-1970), the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner by proceedings dated 6-4-1981 by the Director of Settlement and appellate authority in A.P.No.357 of 1977, prevails over the provisions of the Amended 1959 Regulation and consequent on this position the ownership and the possession of the petitioner of the property, is not liable to be disturbed or declared null and void on the basis of the application of the Amended 1959 Regulation.
(b) The authorities under the Amended 1959 Regulation are bound to recognise and give effect to the determination by the authorities under the Regulation 2 of 1970 and consequent on this obligation the proceedings under the Amended 1959 Regulation should have been concluded in favour of the petitioner and on this premise the appellate order dated 4-9-1983 and the revisional order dated 20-10-1993 are invalid as also the primary order dated 9-10-1980 (Proceedings under the Amended 1959 Regulation).
3. Analysis of the Legislative environment and the precedents cited in the context of the aforesaid contentions :
(A) Amended 1959 Regulation has been enacted by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers available under Para 5(2) of the V Schedule to the Constitution of India, with the object of regulating the transfers of land in the scheduled areas inter alia of West Godawari District of Andhra Pradesh. With effect from 3-2-1970 any transfer of immovable property by a person unless in favour ofenumerated persons or societies, is delcared null and void by Section 3 of the said Regulation. This provision is further effectuated by a non-obstinate clause. A presumption is also enacted therein that possession of immovable property in the agency tracts by a non-tribal, has been acquired through a transfer made by a member of Scheduled Tribe, unless the contrary is proved. An elaborate substantive and procedural package has been laid out in this Regulation to determine the validity of any such transfer, for vestiture of property in the State, for restoration of the property to the transferor or his heirs, or failing which to assignment thereof to any other member of Scheduled Tribe or a specified society. The Legislative scheme under the Regulation also provides for an adjudicatory mechanism and for appeal and revisions. To the extent of its operation this is a special and self-contained Legislation respecting transfer of immovable properties in scheduled areas.
(B) Regulation 2 of 1970 is also made by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers under Para 5(2) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of this Regulation enables a ryot in a scheduled area to which this Regulation applies, to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of all cultivable lands which were properly included or which ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not lands in respect of which any other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other extant law relating to grant of ryotwari patta. The first proviso to Section 7 enables a person to acquire ryotwari patta in respect of lands in estates which have been taken over under the 1948 Act, if such person has been in continuous occupation of such lands on the notified date. The notified date is 1-7-1971. The second proviso to Section 7 enacts that in respect of lands other than those covered under the first proviso, no ryot, who is not a member of Schedule Tribe, shall be entitled to a patta unless--(a) such person has been in possession or occupation continuously for not less than 8 years prior to the commencement of this Regulation; (b) such possession or occupation shall not be void or illegal under Amended 1959 Regulation or any other extant law. This Regulation also contains an elaborate scheme for enquiries, determination, grant of partas and for appeals from any primary order. Section 9 of this Regulation empowers the Settlement Officer to inquire into the nature and history of all lands in respect of which ryotwari pata is claimed under Section 7 and empowers determination of which claims in respect of which lands should be allowed and persons are entitled to ryotwari patta. Proviso to Section 9 reiterates the Legislative scheme viz., that such claim for a ryotwari patta should not be void under any other law applicable to Scheduled Areas, as a condition precedent to the grant of ryotwari patta. Section 15 of this Regulation also provides over-riding effect to^the provisions of the Regulation qua certain specified regulations and other extant law, custom, usage or agreement or any other decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or any authority.
An analysis of the relevant provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970 reveals that ryotwari patta may be claimed by two classes of persons--(a) by any ryot in respect of the lands which were properly included or ought to have been so included in his holdings except the lands in respect of which any other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other extant law of the State relating to grant of ryotwari patta; and by persons who were entitled to ryotwari patta under 1948 Act. This class of persons would be entitled to a patta on fulfilling the specified pre-conditions. These preconditions are - (1) The land should have been continuously in the occupation of that person from the notified date (Explanation to Section 7 of Regulation 2 of 1970 defined the expression 'notified date' by reference to Section 2(10) of 1948 Act); (2) such person has been in continuous possession or occupation of the land for not less than eight years prior to the commencement of Regulation 2 of 1970; and (3) such possession or occupation is not void or illegal under Amendment 1959 Regulation or any other extant law.
(C) Since the land in question is admittedly part of an estate taken over under the 1948 Act, the petitioner herein could only have claimed a ryotwari patta on the foundation of her predecessor-in-title, Chebrolu Dharmaiah's entitlement to such a patta qua the first proviso to Section 7 of Regulation" 2 of 1970. Since the lands comprised in a former estate are outside the purview of Section 7(1) of Regulation 2 of 1970, the petitioner could not have claimed a patta as a general right. One of the pre-conditions for grant of patta is that the petitioner's possession or occupation is not void or illegal under Amendment 1959 Regulation. Under Section 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970, the Settlement Officer or the appellate authority, the Director of Settlements, is obligated to record a satisfaction that the claim for ryotwari patta is not void under any law applicable to the scheduled areas, which necessarily means void under Amended 1959 Regulation,
(D) Neither the order of the Settlement Officer dated 30-9-1977 in SR No.570 of 1977, denying the ryotwari patta to the petitioner, nor the order of the appellate authority dated 6-4-1981 in Andhra Pradesh No.375 of 1977 granting the petitioner a ryotwari patta, nor the alleged agreement of sale dated 20-9-1968 nor the registered sale deed dated 21-7-1971, have been filed in this writ petition despite relief claimed being in proceedings, in the nature of certiorari. The respondent-State has also not produced the records.
(E) The provisions of Amended 1959 Regulations constitute a complete Code in relation to the determination of the validity of transfer to immovable property in a scheduled area. Having regard to the scheme of the Legislation the determination of the validity of the transfer in favour of the petitioner of the lands in question, by the sale deed dated 21-7-1971 has to be judged only on the parameters of law contained in Amended 1959 Regulation. The primary, appellate and revisional authorities under Amended 1959 Regulation have concurrently found and concluded that the agreement of sale dated 20-9-1968 pleaded by the petitioner has been proved. They have also concurrently found that the transfer in favour of the petitioner is founded on the registered sale deed dated 21-7-1971, subsequent to the coming into force of the amendment, i.e., 3-2-1970. The transfer is thus patently and dentonstrably void under Amended 1959 Regulation.
(F) Sri A. Rangacharyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that having regard to the grant of ryotwari patta in the petitioner's favour under Regulation 2 of 1970 by the appellate order 6-4-1981, the appeal against the primary orders under Amended 1959 Regulation should have been allowed as the petitioner's entitlement determined under Regulation 2 of 1970 is binding on the authorities under Amended 1959 Regulation. In support of this contention the petitioner's Counsel relies on the following decisions:
(1) In Sadanapalli Ramachandra and others v. The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Palwancha, District Khammam, and others, 1978 (2) APLJ 244, the facts were that the petitioners had an order in their favour under Section 8 read with Rule' 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Mahals (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 and the 4th respondent an order in his favour under Regulation 1 of 1959. This Court, having considered the overriding effect provided to the Mahals Regulation under Section 33 of the Act, held that the order in favour of the writ petitions would, therefore, prevail over the order in favour of the 4th respondent. The brief reasoning available in this decision is of no assistance to the petitioner since in the case on hand there are non obstinate provisions both in Regulation 2 of 1970 as well as Amended 1959 Regulation. Further, Regulation 2 of 1970, as already noticed, specifically requires an examination by the concerned authorities that the claim for ryotwari patta is not inconsistant with the provisions of Amended 1959 Regulation. The case relied on is, therefore, distinguishable on the basis of a distinct Legislative environment in the present case.
(2) In Javvdi Samba Murthy v. The Agent to the Government, East Godavari Dist., at Kakinada & Ors., 1983 (2) APLJ 96, the relevant facts were that the petitioner was granted a ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969, which had become final. Thereafter in a proceeding instituted under Section 3 of the 1959 Regulation, the petitioner's possession was declared void his eviction ordered and the restoration of land directed to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner's appeal thereon yielded no result. In this context and relying on the decision in S. Ramachandm case (supra), in view of the over-riding effect provided to the provisions of Muttas Regulation 1969 in Section 34 thereof and in view of the fact that the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner was earlier to the proceedings under 1959 Regulation, this Court held that the authorities under the 1959 Regulation were bound by the determination under the Mutta's Regulation. This decision is also distinguishable on facts. In the case on hand the determination of the invalidity of the transfer in favour of the petitioner under Amended 1959 Regulation was earlier in point of time. In fact even if the principle of the decision were to be applied, it would only render invalid the patta granted in favour of the petitioner under Regulation 2 of 1970.
(3) In T. Leelavathamma v. The Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, , a Division Bench of this Court enunciated the
principle that the findings of the Transport authorities in proceedings under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the holder of a permit has not used or caused or allowed a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised bv the permit is binding on the licensing officer appointed under the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, so as to preclude him from raising a demand for tax or additional tax and penalty on the basis that the vehicle was used in a manner not authorised by the permit. Sri Chirmappa Reddy, J (as he then was) came to the above conclusion on an analysis of the two Acts in question and on the reasoning-
"A proceeding under the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for determing the tax payable by the owner of a vehicle contemplates no enquiry but where higher tax or penalty is sought to be levied, the principles of natural justice will have to be observed. Such a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is ordinarily concerned with questions which can only be answered with reference to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Vehicles Rules, the permits granted under that Act and other proceedings under that Act and which are primarily determinable by the authorities constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act. In such a proceeding, any finding already arrived at in a proceeding, where such questions are primarily to be answered must be considered to be final and conclusive evidence of the fact."
The ration of this decision in fact goes against the writ petitioner. Amended 1959 Regulation contains an elaborate scheme of primary and appeal opportunities to ensure a proper determination of the validity or otherwise of a transfer which would run foul of the provisions of the said Regulation. This is a special enactment intended to protect the interest of the Tribals. The determination of the validity or otherwise of a transfer, under this Regulation is conclusive of the issue and binds identical questions arising under any other Regulation whether earlier or later in point of time. Further the fact that Regulation 2 of 1970 also requires the authorities thereunder to ensure that the grant of ryotwari patta would not be inconsistant with the Amended 1959 Regulation, would clearly indicate the Legislative intent that Regulation 2 of 1970 intends primacy to be accorded to the Legislative philosophy underlying the various provisions of the Amended 1959 Regulation. On this interactive and purposive construction of the two Regulations, the applicable interpretive principles warrant that the non obstante provision in Section 15 of Regulation 2 of 1970 ought not to be construed to permit subversion of any determination made under Amended 1959 Regulation. This interpretation is also mandated in view of the specific observations of the Supreme Court in the majority judgment in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , to the effect-
"The interpretation of the words 'person' 'regulation' and 'distribution' require to be broached broadly to elongate socio-economic justice to the tribals. The word 'regulation' in Para 5(2)(b) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and the title of the Regulation would not only control allotment of land to the Tribes in Scheduled area but also prohibits transfer of private or Government's land in such areas to the non-tribals. While later clause (a) achieves the object of prohibiting transfers inter vivos by tribals to the prohibiting or non-tribals inter se, the first clause includes the State Government or being an juristic person integral scheme of Para 5(2) of Schedule. The Regulation seeks to further achieve the object of declaring with a presumptive evidence that the land in the Scheduled Areas belongs to the Scheduled Tribes and any transfer made to a non-tribal shall always be deemed to have been made by a tribal unless the transferee establish the contra. It also prohibits transfer of the land in any form known to law and declared such transfer as void except by way of testamentary disposition by a tribal to his kith and kin/tribal or by partition among them. The regulation and its predecessor law in operation in the respective areas regulate transfer between a tribal and non-tribal with prior permission of the designated officer as a condition precedent to prevent exploitation of the tribals."
(4) In Gaddam Narsa Reddi & others v. Collector, Adilabad & others, 1981 (2) APLJ 260, a Full Bench of this Court held that when a transfer contravenes the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959, it will not be saved even if made in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the Indian Registration Act, or any other law applicable thereto. The Full Bench held that to a transfer falling within the purview of Section 3(1)(a) of Regulation 1 of 1959, the provisions of the transfer of Property Act, of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, or the Indian Registration Act, would not apply and therefore, the protection of Section 53-A of the TP Act, would not be available to a person in possession claiming under a transfer falling within the purview of Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation. In other words where the transfer contravenes the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation, it would not be saved even if it is made in conformity with the relevant provisions of the TP Act or the Indian Registration Act, etc., and a person in possession of immovable property in agency tract by virtue of a transfer made in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (1)(a) of the Regulation, would not be entitled to claim the benefit of Section 53-A of the TP Act. In the case on hand the agreement of sale dated 20-9-1968 together with the possession of the property pleaded by the petitioner in the proceedings under Amended 1959 Regulation has been found not substantiated as no evidence to that effect has been adduced by the petitioner. This is a finding of fact which is final and conclusive. The title of the petitioner, therefore, is referable to the registered sale deed dated 21-7-1971, which occurred admittedly, subsequent to the coming into force of Amended 1959 Regulation. Consequently the transfer in his favour has rightly been held to be null and void applying the statutory declaration under Amended 1959 Regulation.
(5) In Manayam Gangaraju & others v. The Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram, E.G. District & others, 1986 (1) APLJ 417, this Court held that pendency of proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1970 do not inhibit initiation of proceedings under Regulation 1 of 1959. This decision re-enforces the view of this Court herein. The fact that the petitioner was rejected a ryotwari patta by the Settlement Officer on 30-9-1977 and his appeal thereon in AP 325 of 1975 before the Director of Settlements was pending was not a bar to the initiation of proceedings under Amended 1959 Regulation. Consequently the decision of the primary authority under Amended 1959 Regulation was a valid proceedings and its determination is operative and binding. The petitioner was obligated to place the primary order of the Special Deputy Collector, dated 9-10-1980 in SR No.71 of 1980 before the Director of Settlements (appellant authority) under Regulation 2 of 1970. The petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court, for the reasons best known to him, either the primary or the appellate proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1970. Apart from the fact that Amended 1959 Regulation has primacy over other regulations in view of its being a special Legislation and in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Smatha case (supra), this Court is unable to give credence to the appellate order under Regulation 2 of 1970 said to be in favour of the petitioner in the absence of the order which has not been filed for perusal of this Court and in the absence of proof that the appellate order took into consideration the primary order dated 9-10-1980 under Amended 1959 Regulation. Since under the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970 the claim of ryotwari patta could be considered having due regard to its effect on Amended 1959 Regulation, such a satisfaction that it has been so considered, is warranted and nothing has been shown by the petitioner to that effect.
(6) In Kakarala Nageswara Rao v. Government of A.P. rep, by its Secretary & others, 1995 (3) ALD 222, this Court considered the question whether an agreement of sale prior to 3-2-1970 would place the transfer consequent thereon beyond the declaration of invalidity by Amended 1959 Regulation, Declaring the principle that it would in view of the definition of 'transfer' in Section 2(g) of the Amended 1959 Regulation, this Court, however, found that both the primary and appellate authorities refused to accept the petitioner's plea that the registered sale deeds after 3-2-1970, were preceded by agreements of sale prior to 3-2-1970. This finding was recorded by the authorities on the ground that the alleged agreement of sale has not been produced before the authorities and further that there was no reference to the alleged agreement of sale in the sale deed or any evidence in proof of their possession or payment of land revenue prior to 3-2-1970. Relying upon this finding of the authorities, this Court declined to invalidate the findings of the authorities under the Amended 1959 Regulation. The facts of the case on hand are in pari materia with the above decision which squarely apply and covers the issue against the petitioner herein.
(7) In Vaddi Veeraih v. The Agent to Government, Khammam & others, 1996 (1) ALD 107, a Division Bench of this Court declined to give credence to an agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into on 3-5-1960 on a stamp paper of a denomination of Rs. 1.50, which was styled as (Vikaraya Patramu), which was held to be a sale deed and therefore in violation of Section 54 of the T.P.Act since it was not registered. The Division Bench relying upon the Full Bench decision in G. Narsa Reddi's case (supra), held that even if the documents were to be considered as agreement of sale it was not open to the appellant to rely upon Section 53-A of the T.P.Act. In the case on hand demonstrably neither the alleged agreement of sale nor any evidence to support the possession immediately pursuant thereto, was adduced before the authorities. Thus the transfer in favour of the petitioner founded only on the registered sale deed dated 21-7-1971 is void under Amended 1959 Regulation on the ration of the above Division Bench decision also.
(8) In Adru Nagarthnam v. Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad & others, 1997 (2) ALD 180, this Court considered the question whether the finding arrived at under Amended 1959 Regulation was binding on the authorities under Regulation 2 of 1970 and held not. In the facts considered the transfer in favour of the petitioner was held valid in the proceedings initiated under Amended 1959 Regulation, which decision, however, was not accepted and a ryotwari patta was declined under Regulation 2 of 1970 on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the settlement authorities as required in Section 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970. Considering the specific provisions in Regulation 2 of 1970, this Court held that the settlement authorities are bound to consider the validity of a claimant's ownership under Amended 1959 Regulation in a proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1970 and that a prior determination under Amended 1959 Regulation is a piece of evidence which is, however, not conclusive. In the case on hand the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before this Court that the determination by the Special Deputy Collector, dated 9-10-1980 under Amended 1959 Regulation was brought to the notice of the Director of Settlements (appellate authority) under Regulation 2 of 1970. In fact even the above order in favour of the petitioner has not been filed. In these circumstances I am unable to countenance the contention either that the , appellate order under Regulation 2 of 1970 was in accordance with the express requirements of the said Regulation or that the prior determination under Amended 1959 Regulation would be overborne by the appellate orders under Regulation 2 of 1970. Further in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Samatha case (supra), the prohibition against transfer and the declaration of nullity enjoined under Amended 1959 Regulation having been held to be an emanation of Para 5(2) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution itself, the determination of invalidity declared under the provisions of Amended 1959 Regulation will have to be held as over-riding any contrary determination under any other Regulation.
4. In the light of the above analysis there are no merits in the writ petition, which must fail and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.