Judgment : Challenge in this writ petition is against the order dated 02-05-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, on an appeal filed under Section 9(3) of A.P. Regulation 2/70 whereby and whereunder, the order passed by the Director of Settlements-2nd respondent in AP No.178/77, dated 5-11-1980 granting ryotwari patta to the 5th respondent herein has been confirmed. 2. The petitioner is the daughter of Butchanna. She claims to be a tribal born and brought up in Dasayyapalem village, Hamlet of Buttayagudem village and Mandal. Karam Chenchappa is her grandfather. It is her plea that her grandfather Karam Chenchappa did Podu cultivation of the land called "Kondapakka Chenu" in R.S.No.987 some hundred years back. He was one of the Izaradars of the village. After his death, her grandfather cultivated the lands for thirty years during 1915 to 1945. Her grandfather died when her father was aged about ten years. Her principal plea is that her grandfather handed over the land to her maternal grandfather, namely, Tellam Musalappa, who gave the land on lease to Juttiga Ramana and Ganganna, sons of Juttiga Lakshmaiah of Muppinavarigudem village. They paid the lease amount for few years and later on, they stopped paying the lease amount and sold the land to the father of the 5th respondent, namely, Peda Satyam. The 5th respondent filed an application for grant of ryotwari patta before the Settlement Officer, Eluru and the same ended in rejection on 27-4-1977, vide S.R.No.7 of 1977. The 5th respondent filed an appeal being AP 178/77 before the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. The appeal came to be allowed on 05-11-1980 on the ground that the transfer took place prior to enforcement of Act 1 of 1917 and that the lands have been in possession of non-tribals right from the year 1910. The father of the petitioner challenged the order of the Director of Settlements-2nd respondent in AP 178/77, dated 5-11-1980 by filing an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey & Settlements, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-1st respondent. The said appeal ended in dismissal on 02-5-2001. Hence, this writ petition assailing the order of the 1st respondent confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in granting ryotwari patta in favour of the 5th respondent. The said appeal ended in dismissal on 02-5-2001. Hence, this writ petition assailing the order of the 1st respondent confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in granting ryotwari patta in favour of the 5th respondent. For better understanding the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and they are thus:- "8. I submit that the said order of the first Respondent is illegal, contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. The first Respondent has not applied his mind to the facts of the case properly. He should have seen that No.10 Adangal for 1348 Fasli clearly shows the names of the tribals in respect of the entire village extent of 250 Acres and the so called encumbrances certificate could not have been the basis for granting a ryotwari patta in favour of the fifth Respondent. The first respondent should have seen that in respect of land matters in schedule areas the burden of proof is on the non-tribals as against the tribals to show that they have got title to the land. The first Respondent should have perused the Registered document dated 17-05-1910 on which much reliance is placed by the fifth Respondent and it clearly shows that the said document does not relate to the land claimed by the fifth Respondent at all. It relates to the land in Regulagunda village but not Dasayyapalem village. Further I submit that the fifth Respondent was never in possession of the land prior to 1959 and hence his possession of the land is contrary to the provisions of A.P.Scheduled Arears of Land Transfer Regulation and hence he is not entitled for a ryotwari patta. The impugned order also does not show the nature of the transactions that were alleged to have occurred between the parties from 01.01.1916 to 31.08.1959 and in any event the fifth Respondent was not in possession of the land from 1910 onwards as stated in the impugned order. I submit that the impugned order suffers from serious error apparent on the face of the record and liable to be quashed. 9) I submit that the fifth Respondent herein filed the application for issuance of Pattadar Passbook before the fourth Respondent and he has not issued the same in view of the pending litigation. I submit that the impugned order suffers from serious error apparent on the face of the record and liable to be quashed. 9) I submit that the fifth Respondent herein filed the application for issuance of Pattadar Passbook before the fourth Respondent and he has not issued the same in view of the pending litigation. If the passbook is issued pending disposal of the writ petition, I suffer serious and irreparable loss. I submit that as already stated above the document dated 17.5.1910 on which reliance is placed by the 5th Respondent and his predecessors in interest does not relate to the Dasayyapalem village but it realates to Regulakunta village and the entire case of the 5th Respondent falls on this ground alone. It is therefore just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the 5th Respondent not to alienate the land, pending disposal of the above writ petition". 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 23-04-2002. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter affidavits. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 filed common counter. N.V.V.Satyanarayana, Settlement Officer-Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem has sworn to the affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that as per the records available right from 1910, the land under dispute is in possession and enjoyment of non-tribals. The disputed land situates in Dasaiahpalem village. The villages Dasaiahpalem and Regulakunta are the hamlet villages of Buttaigudem Revenue village. The lands up to Survey Numbers 1011 are situated in Dasaiahpalem village and whereas the lands starting from Survey Numbers 1012 are situated in Regulakunta village as per the records available. The land in dispute is in possession and enjoyment of non-tribals from 1910. As per the document available, one Areti Venkata Ramaiah purchased the land from Asi Rajaiah and Kannaiah, who are tribals, under a registered document No.253/1910. Later, Juttiga Ganganna and Ramana, sons of Lakshmaiah sold their half share of land i.e., Ac.5.00 cents to Gubbala Satyanarayana under document No.1267/1955, who in turn, sold the same to Nandina Subba Rao S/o Janaki Ramaiah under document No.1641/1957. The other son of Lakshmaiah, namely, Rama Swamy also sold his remaining half share of land to Nandina Sri Rama Murthy who is another son of Janaki Ramaiah under Document No.1189/1958. The land is in occupation of respondent No.5. 5. The other son of Lakshmaiah, namely, Rama Swamy also sold his remaining half share of land to Nandina Sri Rama Murthy who is another son of Janaki Ramaiah under Document No.1189/1958. The land is in occupation of respondent No.5. 5. The counter of the 5th respondent, in brief, is:- The Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh-2nd respondent granted ryotwari patta in his favour on 05.11.1980 and whereas, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent after lapse of 19 years without furnishing proper explanation. The petitioner is neither affected nor aggrieved person and therefore, she has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 05-11-1980. The 2nd respondent granted patta in his favour after considering the documentary evidence available and by giving cogent and convincing reasons and therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered with in this writ petition. The tribal lost the possession in the year 1910 and since then the land has been in possession of non-tribals. The sale transactions between non-tribals are not prohibited under the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 or the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a tribal and the land in dispute is situated in tribal area and since the sale of land in favour of the non-tribal is prohibited under the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917 and A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, any sale deed pressed into service by the 5th respondent to substantiate his claim for grant of ryotwari patta cannot be considered. It is also contended by him that since the land in dispute was in possession of a tribal as on the date of the enforcement of A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, the sale transactions in favour of the non-tribal in respect of the land in dispute are to be held void in which case, ryotwari patta cannot be granted in favour of the 5th respondent basing on the void sale deeds. He would further contend that the sale deed dated 17-5-1910 does not relate to the land in dispute and this factual aspect the Director of Settlements-2nd respondent failed to take note and thereby, committed serious error in granting ryotwari patta in favour of the 5th respondent. Learned counsel took me to the sale deed dated 17-5-1990 copy of which is available along with the material in support of his contention that the land for which ryotwari patta has been sought for does not form part of the land covered under the sale deed, dated 17-5-1910. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that the facts of the case have been considered in great detail in an application moved by the father of the petitioner in S.R.No.151 of 1978 dated 3-9-1978 by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, who recorded a finding that the sale deed, dated 15-05-1910 covers the land in dispute. Learned counsel took me to the order dated 03-9-1979 passed on an application (S.R.No.151/78) moved by the father of the petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta, copy of which has been placed on record for perusal at Page No.19 of the material papers. As can be seen from the order dated 3-9-1979 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru, the father of the petitioner filed an application under Section 3(2)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, I of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 complaining that the land in dispute is in possession and enjoyment of a non-tribal and therefore, the possession of the land is to be restored to him. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, conducted enquiry and recorded a finding that the land has been in possession and enjoyment of non-tribal right from the year 1910. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru and it is thus:- "The main contention of the petitioner is that the land in question was taken on cowl by "Areti' family people from his grandfather. But Ex.B.3 which is a certified copy of sale deed dt.17-5-1910 clearly shows that the land under dispute was purchased by two non-triabals by name Areti Ramana and Pasa Ramulu from two tribals by name Asi Rajayya and Asi Kannayya. But Ex.B.3 which is a certified copy of sale deed dt.17-5-1910 clearly shows that the land under dispute was purchased by two non-triabals by name Areti Ramana and Pasa Ramulu from two tribals by name Asi Rajayya and Asi Kannayya. As the above transaction took place prior to the enactment of Act 1 of 1917, the permission of the Agent or any other Prescribed Officer was not necessary and the transaction was valid. Hence the contention of the petitioner that the land was taken on the cowl by "Areti" people cannot be believed as true. Ex.B1, B2 and B4 show that the same land was purchased by the predecessor in title of the Respondent from successors-in-title of the above mentioned non-tribals namely Areti Ramana and Parasa Ramudu. On the death of her husband, the Respondent inherited the land about 8 years back. Thus the land under dispute was continuously in possession of non-tribals from the year 1910. In these circumstances, I hold that the transfers of land involved in this case are not attracted by the provisions of the Agency Land Transfer Regulation and accordingly dismiss the petition without costs". 9. It is evident from the above-referred order that the father of the petitioner suffered an adverse finding in an application moved by him before the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Eluru. There is no material on record to show that the father of the petitioner challenged the said finding and therefore, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the finding recorded by the Special Deputy Collector on the application moved by the father of the petitioner that the sale transactions in respect of the land in dispute are not in contravention of any of the provisions of the Agency Laws (Land Transfer) Regulations have reached finality. The Settlement Officer considered the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as well as the provisions of the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917 and came to the conclusion that the sale by tribal in favour of non-tribal in the year 1910 was not in contravention of any of the provisions then in force. Prior to the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917, there was no prohibition of sale of land in agency area by a tribal in favour of a non-tribal. Prior to the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917, there was no prohibition of sale of land in agency area by a tribal in favour of a non-tribal. For the first time, the prohibition came to be introduced by passing the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917. The said Act came to be repealed consequent on enforcement of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. The land in dispute came to be divested from tribal much prior to the commencement of the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917. The Director of Settlements-2nd respondent as well as the Commissioner of Appeals-1st respondent considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and came to the conclusion that the sale affected in the year 1910 was not in contravention of any of the provisions then in force. Therefore, I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the Director of Settlements-2nd respondent, as confirmed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey & Settlements, Hyderabad. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.