Note on the documents in S.R.No. 293/93:

Ex.R1 Agreement was executed on 30.9.1968 by Nukala Govinda Rao in favour of G.Venkata Ratnam on a stamp paper worth Rs. 10/-. The document is insufficient stamped. The document does not contain the particulars of the sale deed by Dakarapu Seethamma in favour of Nuka Govinda Rao alleged to have taken place on 5.6.68. On the other hand Ex.R4. E.C.No. 1134 of 93 discloses that the document bearing No.704/68 was executed by Dakarapu Seethamma, Durgamma. Rama Rao, in favour of N.Govinda Rao on 5.6.68. The relationship of those persons (Vendors) to the pattedar Maddisetti Ramana whose name figures in Ex. R2 is not established. Further, Ex.R4 contains several other transactions on 2.9.68, 2-12-86 and 17.10.1992 in Column No.3 which were not taken note by the Special Deputy Collector in S.R.No.293/93. It is not known why Ex.R5 and R6 which are of the year 1991-92 continues to reflect the name of respondents in 1968 itself. These material facts have not been taken note by the Special Deputy Collctor while deciding S.R.No. 293 of 1993 and they were purposely ignored. As a result no appeal was filed against the said Order and the said Order has become final indirectly giving legal title to the land which the Vendee/Respondent Gade Venkata Ratnam does not possess.

K.SUKUMARAN
S e n i o r A d v o ca t e                                                          Kochi Office:
S u p r e m e C o u r t                                                             M/s. Sukumaran & Usha
Residence: 182, Supreme Enclave                                         Advocates, Providence Road
Mayur Vihar, Phase – 1                                                          K o c h I - 6 8 2 0 1 8
New Delhi – 110 091                                                              Ph: 0484 – 392381, 395104
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.                                              E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Date: 17.02.2001.

My Dear Ramalingeswara Rao,

I refer to your letter dated 12.01.2001 and enclosures thereto.

I have studied the papers carefully. I feel that Sakti has done yeomen service for the cause of the Tribals.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has taken very narrow view of the liberal scheme of the Constitution of India which has given great emphasis on the protection weakest sections in the society. The Directive Principles of State Policy also loudly proclaim that objective.

It may be necessary to demonstrate the patent illegality through production of typical order of the Special Tahsildar, by producing a copy of it along with a separate petition for prosecution of the additional document.

Whether, in a case where High Court has already exercised its discretion, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Article 136 should be invoked, is a question likely to be posed by the Court.

If, however, ground realities are noticed, the Court can, and in the present circumstances ought to, direct the State and its authorities in whom statutory powers are conferred on trust, to scrutinise the matters carefully.

The order of the High Court does not even attempt to do so. As you have correctly pointed out the attitude may be justified with reference to proceeding relating to the general litigations. There is, however, substantial difference in the cause, that is now sought to be espoused by an organisation which has established its credibility, as detailed in the Writ Petition.

The Special Leave Petition has been settled by me, for being filed in the Supreme Court.

I feel that the matter should be also placed before President of India, who is the constitutional custodian of the interests of the Tribals. That can be pursued independently of the Special Leave Petition.

I would personally like to visit one such Tribal area in the Godavari belt, whenever I could spare some time from the pressures of the professional work in the Supreme Court. Perhaps, during one of the trips to Hyderabad.

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

(JUSTICE K. SUKUMARAN).

To

A. Ramalingeswara Rao, B.Com., LL.M.,
Advocate, 3-6-550/5, 2nd Floor, 7th Street,
Himalaya Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.

P.S.: I met many retired District Judges From Hyderabad in connection with hearing of Cases relating to Shetty Commission Recommendation.