HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION NO.19409 OF 2009

Between:

Atlapakala Rama Krishna

… Petitioner (s)

Versus

Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare

And two (02) others

...Respondents

* * * * *

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 08.01.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Order? Yes/No

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

2

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ WRIT PETITION NO.19409 OF 2009

% 08.01.2026

# Between:

Atlapakala Rama Krishna

… Petitioner (s)

Versus

Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare

And two (02) others

...Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Sri G.Chandra Shekhar Rao

^

Counsel for the Respondent

:

GP for Social Welfare (AP)

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2015 (2) ALT 547.

2. 2010 (3) ALT 663 (D.B.)

3. 2001 (3) ALT 508.

4. 2018 (1) HLT 195.

5. (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 248.

This Court made the following:

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

3

Date on which Order was reserved

:

17.12.2025

Date on which Order was

pronounced

:

08.01.2026

Date on which Order was uploaded

on the website of the High Court

:

08.01.2026

APHC010079012009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 19409/2009

Between:

1. ATLAPAKALA RAMA KRISHNA, RAJAVAMANGI [M],

E.G.DIST., S/O. LATE SRI BENNA SWAMY R/O. LAGARAI

VILLAGE, RAJAVAMANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

A N D

1. GOVT OF A P SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT HYD , REP. BY

ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SOCIAL

WELFARE (CV.2) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT,

HYDERABAD.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI AT

KAKINADA.

3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT

LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT

KAKINADA.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

High Court may be pleased to a writ or order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

order of the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms.No. 69 Social Welfare

(CV.2) Department dated 19-06-2009 confirming the order of the

2nd respondent in Roc. No. C5(M)/1268/2001 dated 15-09-2005

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

4

as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void, contrary to Section 5 of the

A.P. (SCs., STs., & BCs.,) Regulation of issue of Community

Certificates Act 1993 and Rules 8 & 9 of the A.P. (SCs., STs., &

BC.,) issue of Community Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates

Rules, 1997 and against the Principles of Natural Justice and

opposed to the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 25349 OF 2009

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the order

of the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms.No. 69 Social Welfare (CV.2)

Department dated 19-06-2009 confirming the order of the 2nd

respondent in Roc. No. C5(M)/1268/2001 dated 15-09-2005 as

pending disposal of the above writ petition.

IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WVMP 667 OF 2010

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated

14.9.2009 passed in WPMP.No.25349 of 2009 in WP.No.19409 of

2009 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased to permit the present writ

petitioner to reconstitute the entire record and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

The Court made the following:

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 19409 OF 2009

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ or order of direction more particularly

one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of

1

st

respondent in G.O.Ms.No.69, Social Welfare (CV.2)

Department, dated 19.06.2009 confirming the order of 2

nd

respondent in Roc.No.C5(M)/1268/2001, dated 15.09.2005

as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void, contrary to Section 5

of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of

Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules 8 and 9 of the

Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and

Backward Classes) Issue of Community Nativity and Date of

Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 and against the principles of

natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of

India and pass such other order or orders …‟

2. Contents of the affidavit filed by Writ Petitioner, in

brief, are that petitioner and his family members belonged to

Konda Kapu caste, which is listed as Scheduled Tribe Community

under the Presidential Order, 1950, and they are residents of

Agency Tracks of the present East Godavari District from time

immemorial; that throughout the educational career of petitioner,

he was considered as a member belonged to Konda Kapu

(Scheduled Tribe) community, except while he was studying

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

6

B.Sc., Agriculture; that based on an inquiry, the Director of Tribal

Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, by Proceedings dated

08.09.2001, informed the Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural

University that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Kapu

community.

(b) That the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2244 of 2001

challenging the Proceedings dated 08.09.2001 and the said Writ

Petition was disposed of, by an Order dated 20.12.2002 giving

liberty to 2

nd

respondent to hold inquiry as to the social status of

the petitioner; that thereafter, 2

nd

respondent held inquiry

accordingly referring the matter to the District Level Scrutiny

Committee headed by 3

rd

respondent, but the said Committee

neither submitted report to 2

nd

respondent nor 2

nd

respondent

issued any show-cause notice as required under Section 5 of the

Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and

Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates

Act, 1993 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1993’) and Rules 8 and 9 of the

Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and

Backward Classes) Issue of Community Nativity and Date of Birth

Certificates Rules, 1997 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 1997’) and without

having regard of the same, 2

nd

respondent straightaway passed

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

7

orders in Roc.No.C5(M) 1268/01, dated 15.09.2005, cancelling

the caste certificate of petitioner issued by various authorities.

(c) Challenging the order of 2

nd

respondent, petitioner

preferred appeal before 1

st

respondent as contemplated under

Section 7 of the Act, 1993, but 1

st

respondent erroneously

dismissed the appeal vide G.O.Ms.No.69, Social Welfare (CV.2)

Department, dated 19.06.2009, confirming the order passed by 2

nd

respondent. Though, the petitioner filed voluminous documentary

evidence viz., Copy of Election Identity Card issued by the

Election Authority, Identity Card issued by the Cooperative

Society, Pattadar Pass Book issued by Revenue Authority in

favour of petitioner’s father, Copy of D-Form Patta issued by

Revenue Authority in favour of petitioner and other relevant

documents, disclosing the petitioner’s caste as Konda Kapu, none

of the respondents considered the same. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit, denying the

contents of the affidavit by the petitioner, contending inter alia that

mere residence of Konda Kapus in the Scheduled Area does not

confer upon them the status of Scheduled Tribe; that 2

nd

respondent issued notices to the petitioner on 27.01.2005,

24.03.2005, 06.04.2005, 27.04.2005, 22.06.2005, 11.07.2005 and

21.07.2005 to attend before the Collector, Kakinada with all

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

8

documentary evidence; that the District Level Scrutiny Committee

examined the copy of Death Extract of Atapakala Satyanarayana,

paternal uncle of petitioner, wherein his community was recorded

as Kapu (OC); that further the Land Register Document

No.860/1938, the caste of one Atapakala Chinnayya, paternal

grandfather of petitioner, was mentioned as Kapu (OC); that in the

Document No.870/1938, caste of one Atapakala Sanyasamma,

paternal grandmother of petitioner, was mentioned as Kapu (OC);

that in the Pattadar Pass Book, issued in favour of one Atapakala

Bennaswami, father of petitioner, though the caste was recorded

as Konda Kapu (ST), the particulars obtained from the Sub-

Registrar, Prathipadu revealed that the petitioner’s family

members belonged to Kapu (OC).

(b) The District Level Scrutiny Committee issued notice

to the petitioner and after taking into consideration of the

explanation submitted by the petitioner, concluded that the

petitioner does not belong to Konda Kapu (ST) community; that

the Collector, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after giving

several opportunities, passed the Order, dated 15.09.2005,

canceling the Community Certificate Konda Kapu (Scheduled

Tribe) of the petitioner; that as per the genealogy, all the

petitioner’s paternal relatives, including his father, married Kapu

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

9

(OC) caste and all his brothers and sisters including the petitioner

also married with Kapu caste people; that in the record sheet of

one Atapakala China Satyanarayana @ Chinnalu, paternal uncle

of petitioner, who studied in MPP Elementary School, Lagarai (V),

it was mentioned as Kapu (OC); that the land document available

in the Sub-Registrar Office, Prathipadu for the year 1938, the

caste status of great grandfather of petitioner was recorded as

Kapu (OC), but not Konda Kapu (ST). The petitioner is not entitled

for the relief as sought by him and he has to be prosecuted as per

Section 12 of the Act, 1993 and the benefits provided to him are to

be recovered as per Section 11 of the Act, 1993. Hence, it is

prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

4. The petitioner filed reply-affidavit to the counter-

affidavit, contending that the alleged Report of the District Level

Scrutiny Committee was neither referred to, in the impugned

order, dated 15.09.2005 of 2

nd

respondent nor a copy of the same

had been supplied to the petitioner to defend his case properly,

even otherwise, it is obligatory on the part of 2

nd

respondent to

supply the copy of report to the petitioner; that the Ryotwari Patta

under the aforesaid Regulations, was being issued in favour of

petitioner after thorough inquiry and after being satisfied that he

belonged to Scheduled Tribe community; that the petitioner’s

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

10

paternal relatives including the father of the petitioner got married

to Kapu caste people, but, there is no prohibition in law to marry

persons belonging to other community people by the people

belonging to Konda Kapu (ST) community. The burden of

demonstrating that a candidate does not belong to the Scheduled

Tribe community is on the authority, who disputes the social

status; that the respondents utterly failed to demonstrate

otherwise as to the petitioner’s social status claim as belonging to

Konda Kapu (ST) community. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Writ

Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and

the learned Assistant/Government Pleader for Social Welfare

representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire material

available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend

that the marriages of the Scheduled Tribe people with other caste

people and vice versa do not form basis to arrive at one’s caste

and similarly surname in other communities also cannot form the

conclusive basis to decide one’s caste. The findings of the

authorities in the orders vide LTRP Nos.43 of 1966 and 30 of 1971

that the petitioner and his family members belonged to Konda

Kapu (Scheduled Tribe) community were not at all taken into

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

11

consideration and erroneously reliance was placed on the

Settlement Pattas issued by the authorities under Regulation No.2

of 1970 and thereby, upheld the proceedings of 2

nd

respondent

issued with regard to cancelling the Caste Certificate issued by

the revenue authorities. Therefore, the impugned proceedings

issued by 2

nd

respondent are not sustainable and the same are

liable to be set-aside.

7. Learned Assistant/Government Pleader for Social

Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 would contend that

the inquiry and the recommendations made by the District Level

Scrutiny Committee revealed that the petitioner did not belong to

Konda Kapu (ST) community. Even though, number of

opportunities were given to the petitioner, he failed to file valid

documentary evidence to support his caste claim as Konda Kapu

(ST). Learned Assistant/Government Pleader further contends

that mere possessing landed properties by the petitioner and his

family members in the Scheduled Area does not confer any right

to claim his community as Konda Kapu (ST).

8. The issue in regard to adjudicating the caste of the

petitioner arose, when an allegation petition was received by the

Registrar, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agriculture University (ANGRAU)

from the Co-Convener, Andhra Pradesh Manne Dora Welfare

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

12

Society, Rampachodavaram and the matter was referred to the

Commissioner Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad to conduct an inquiry

and to submit the report. As per the version of respondents, the

matter was enquired into, by the Tribal Welfare Department, which

revealed that the petitioner and his family members do not belong

to Konda Kapu (ST) community, but they belonged to Kapu (OC)

and reported the same to the Registrar of the University.

9. A perusal of the Order passed by 2

nd

respondent vide

Ref.C5(M)1268/2001, dated 15.09.2005 goes to show that

aggrieved of the Enquiry Report, the petitioner filed Writ Petition

No.22446 of 2001 on the file of this Court and this Court vide

Order, dated 20.12.2002 disposed of, the said Writ Petition,

directing 2

nd

respondent to complete the inquiry with regard to

either confirmation or cancelation of the social status certificate of

the petitioner. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the

Chairman, District Level Scrutiny Committee to inquire into the

social status of the petitioner. A perusal of the aforesaid order

further goes to show that the Committee examined the Report of

the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, contents of the allegation made

by the Co-Convener, Andhra Pradesh Manne Dora Welfare

Sangham, copy of Death extract of one Atapakala Satyanarayana,

dated 02.02.1967, who is paternal uncle of petitioner, Land

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

13

Register Document No.860 of 1938 of one Atapakala Chinnayya,

paternal grandfather of petitioner, Land Document No.870 of 1938

of one Atapakala Sanyasamma , paternal grandmother of

petitioner, copy of Pattadar Pass Book of one Atapakala

Bennaswami, father of petitioner and Land Document No.792 of

1945 of one Atapakala Mangamma, paternal grandmother of

petitioner, and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to

Konda Kapu (ST) Community, as the caste of all the aforesaid

persons, who are relatives of the petitioner, in the above

documents, was mentioned as Kapu (OC).

10. A perusal of the order of 2

nd

respondent reveals that

the petitioner submitted written explanation to the District Level

Scrutiny Committee, along with School records pertaining to the

year 1976 and land records pertaining to the year 1945, and

contended that the land records of the year 1945 belonged to

Atapakala surname was recorded as Konda Kapu. Besides the

aforesaid documents, the petitioner also produced tax receipts

and LTRP proceedings of the Deputy Collector and Pattadar Pass

Books before the said Committee. However, the said Committee

opined that ample time and opportunity was given to the petitioner

to prove his caste claim and as no valid documentary evidence

was filed, it was observed that the petitioner does not belong to

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

14

Konda Kapu (ST) community and recommended 2

nd

respondent to

declare the caste of petitioner and his family members as Kapu

(OC) and further recommended to cancel the caste certificate of

Konda Kapu (ST) community obtained by the petitioner and his

family members, issued by the revenue authorities. The order of

2

nd

respondent further discloses that basing on the

recommendations of the said Committee, the petitioner was

issued notice on number of occasions to attend before them with

all recorded documentary evidence to support his caste claim.

However, the petitioner did not file any written arguments in

response to the notices issued by 2

nd

respondent. Thereby, 2

nd

respondent, vide Order in Ref.C5(M)1268/2001, dated

15.09.2005, cancelled the Caste Certificate of petitioner as Konda

Kapu (ST), issued by the revenue authorities on various

occasions.

11. Indisputably, aggrieved of the said Order, dated

15.09.2025, petitioner preferred appeal before 1

st

respondent.

Vide G.O.Ms.No.69, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated

19.06.2009, 1

st

respondent rejected the appeal filed by the

petitioner and confirmed the order passed by 2

nd

respondent. In

the appeal before 1

st

respondent, petitioner claimed ST status

mainly on the basis of his family/forefathers residence in Agency

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

15

Area and existence of lands in their name and his caste was being

recorded as such in school records and also the caste of one

Atapakala Mangamma, paternal grandmother of petitioner, was

mentioned as Konda Kapu. However, 1

st

respondent rejected the

ground on the pretext that the documentary evidence adduced by

the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare especially land records relating

to the year 1938 got more probative value than the evidence

furnished by the petitioner. It was further observed by 1

st

respondent in the impugned Order that as per the genealogy, all

the paternal relatives including the father of petitioner married in

Kapu (OC) caste and all the brothers and sisters including the

petitioner also married in Kapu (OC) caste.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

in case of inter-caste marriage, it is settled law that the children

would get the social status of the father. He placed reliance on

proposition of law laid down in Syamala Rama Raju v.

Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare (CV.2)

Department rep. by its Principal Secretary and others

1

,

wherein, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held as under:

(paragraph Nos.5 and 6)

1

2015 (2) ALT 547.

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

16

“5. …However, it is admitted case that the father of

the petitioner belongs to ST (Koya) community and his mother

belongs to OC (Reddy) community. In the case of such inter-

caste marriage, it is well established that the children get the

social status of the father. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner

worked at Rajahmundry Municipality under ST category and in all

the school records the social status of the petitioner was shown

as ST community only.”

6. In the circumstances, instead of remanding the

matter to the appellate authority, I hold that the petitioner belongs

to ST (Koya) community based on the social status of his father.

In view of the admitted case of the petitioner‟s father belonging to

ST community, the other issue whether the petitioner was

brought up in the surroundings of ST community is not being

dealt with.”

Further, in Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal

Secretary, Agriculture and Co -operation (Co-op.II)

Department, Hyderabad and another v. Pagadala Khali Kanthi

and another

2

, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held as

under: (Paragraph No.12)

“12. The primary reason for cancellation by the

Collector and recommendation by the District Level Scrutiny

Committee being inter caste marriage of the father of the

respondent and the assumption that the offspring is not entitled to

claim such status. The aforesaid issue is clearly settled by two

decisions of the Supreme Court on which the learned counsel for

the respondent has rightly placed reliance. The following passage

2

2010 (3) ALT 663 (D.B.)

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

17

from Anjan Kumar v. Union of India [(2006) 3 SCC 257]

completely answers the aforesaid issue:

“6. Undisputedly, the marriage of the

appellant‟s mother (tribal woman) to one Lakshmi Kant

Sahay (Kayastha) was a court marriage performed

outside the village. Ordinarily, the court marriage is

performed when either of the parents of bride or

bridegroom or the community of the village objects to

such marriage. In such a situation, the bride or the

bridegroom suffers the wrath of the community of the

village and runs the risk of being ostracized or ex-

communicated from the village community. Therefore,

there is no question of such marriage being accepted by

the village community. The situation will, however, stand

on different footing in a case where a tribal man maries a

non-tribal woman (Forward Class) then the offshoots of

such wedlock would obviously attain the tribal status.

However, the woman (if she belongs to forward class)

cannot automatically attain the status of tribal unless she

has been accepted by the community as one of them,

observed all rituals, customs and traditions which have

been practiced by the tribals from time immemorial and

accepted by the community of the village as a member of

tribal society for the purpose of social relations with the

village community. Such acceptance must be by the

village community by a resolution and such resolution

must be entered in the Village Register kept for the

purpose. Often than not, such acceptance is preceded by

feast/rituals performed by the parties where the elders of

the village community participated. However, acceptance

of the marriage by the community itself would not entitle

the woman (Forward Class) to claim the appointment to

the post reserved for the reserved category. It would be

incongruous to suggest that the tribal woman, who

suffered disabilities, would be able to compete with the

woman (Forward class) who does not suffer disabilities

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

18

wherefrom she belongs but by reason of marriage to

tribal husband and such marriage is accepted by the

community would entitle her for appointment to the post

reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes. It would be a negation to Constitutional goal.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. A perusal of the order of 2

nd

respondent goes to show

that petitioner did not attend the proceedings before 2

nd

respondent. Indeed, a perusal of the said order goes to show that

petitioner was given ample opportunities to produce documentary

evidence in support of his caste claim. However, in the impugned

order passed by 1

st

respondent, it was mentioned that the order of

2

nd

respondent was mainly based on the findings of the inquiry

conducted by the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare. In fact, none of

the parties filed the recommendations of the District Level Scrutiny

Committee before this Court to look into the observations made by

the said Committee.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

the inquiry of the District Level Scrutiny Committee is behind the

back of the petitioner and despite the request of petitioner, the

report of the Committee has not been furnished to him. Therefore,

the Order passed by 2

nd

respondent, which was confirmed by 1

st

respondent placing reliance on the report of the Committee, which

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

19

has not seen the light of day, constitutes an infraction of the

salutary principles of natural justice. He placed strong reliance on

the decision laid down in Varre Venkata Ramana Jaganmohan

Rao and others v. Join Collector and District Magistrate, East

Godavari District and others

3

, wherein the High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad held as under: (Paragraph Nos.7 and 10)

“7. On the admitted factual scenario each of the

petitioners have a certificate issued by the competent authority

certifying them as belonging to Konda Kapu community. Public

law principles enunciate, on settled doctrine, that there is a prima

facie presumption of validity of public orders duly made. The

petitioners must thus be considered, prima facie, belonging to

Konda Kapu community. The burden of demonstrating that they

do not so belong and that the certificates are vitiated by factual

errors, is thus on the respondents. The respondents are

obligated to discharge the said burden by marshalling cogent,

rational and legal evidence in respect of the conclusion to resile

from the earlier certification of the petitioners‟ community and in

respect of their decision to cancel the certificates issued in favour

of the petitioners.

10. The enquiry by the Sub-Collector is admittedly

behind the back of the petitioners. The report of the Sub-

Collector has not been furnished to the petitioners, despite their

request for the same. In the circumstances, the determination by

the Sub-Collector that Varre Venkata Narasaiah and Varre

Veeraiah, the ancestors of the petitioners, belong to Kapu

community could not have legally been considered as conclusive

evidence that their family belongs to Kapu community and thus

form the foundation for an order visiting the petitioners with

3

2001 (3) ALT 508.

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

20

adverse civil consequences qua their community status. Reliance

on the report of the Sub-Collector in the impugned order

constitutes an infraction of the salutary principle of natural justice.

Audi Alteram Partem and is thus liable to be declared as vitiating

the impugned order.”

Further, in K.Shyam v. Government of A.P. rep. by its

Principal Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad

4

, the High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held as under:

“The District Collector while cancelling the caste certificate

has not supplied copy of RDO‟s report which it relied upon and

failed to consider documents produced. Cancellation of caste

certificate in contravention of Rules 9 (3), 9 (4), 9 (5) of the A.P.

S.C., S.T., and Backward Classes – Issue of Community, Nativity

and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 is fatal. The primary

Authority and Appellate Authorities failed to consider the caste of

father is decisive in the matter.”

15. Coming to the documentary evidence adduced by the

petitioner, the petitioner adduced copy of Transfer Certificate,

dated 23.06.1983 issued by the Head Master, Zilla Parishad High

School, Lagarai, East Godavari District, wherein it was mentioned

that the petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe community (Konda

Kapu). The Caste Verification done by the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Rajavommangi, dated 28.09.2002 would disclose that the

father of petitioner married one Seetamma, Repur village, who

4

2018 (1) HLT 195.

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

21

belonged to Kapu community and out of their wedlock, they were

blessed with five sons and one daughter, and the petitioner is one

among them. As per the verification of the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Rajavommangi, the caste of petitioner as per the copy of

his School Certificate was mentioned as Konda Kapu. The said

document further discloses that the then Mandal Revenue Officer,

Rajavommangi viz. Royala Prabhudas issued Permanent Caste

Certificate in favour of petitioner stating that he belonged to Konda

Kapu (ST) community. Furthermore, in all the land record

documents, his caste was mentioned as Konda Kapu, though the

relations were mentioned as Kapu (OC). Besides the above said

document, the petitioner also filed copies of Transfer Certificates

issued by the Zilla Parishad High School, Lagarai and Community

and Caste Certificates in favour of petitioner’s brothers goes to

show that they belonged to Konda Kapu (ST) Community.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

when once the community of a person’s relatives was declared

certifying that they belonged to certain community, there is no

reason to reject the caste claim of the person, who made his caste

claim basing on his relatives caste. He placed reliance on the

proposition of law laid down in State of Bihar and others v.

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

22

Sumit Anand

5

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

(Paragraph No.6)

“… In view of the fact that the respondent‟s father,

grandfather, mother and maternal uncle had all been granted the

certificate certifying that they belong to the „Gond‟ community, we

see no reason to come to a conclusion other than the one arrived

at by the High Court to the effect that the respondent was entitled

to issuance of the caste certificate.”

17. The petitioner filed the order of 1

st

respondent vide

G.O.MS.No.12, Social Welfare (CV2) Department, dated

29.01.2014 passed in the appeal petition preferred by one Boddu

Veeraju and 21 others, who are residents of Lagarai (V),

Rajavommangi (M), East Godavari District. A perusal of the said

order, at 8

th

paragraph, it was stated that the Andhra Pradesh

Gazette issued in the years 1953 and 1963, Konda Kapu,

Mannem Kapu and Kapus of Visakhapatnam and East Godavari

Districts were treated in the category of ‘Hill Tribes’ and based on

this, the authorities used to issue caste certificates, after due

enquiries treating them as Scheduled Tribes. In the findings of the

impugned Order, it was specifically mentioned that the

documentary evidence adduced by the Commissioner (Tribal

Welfare) especially in the land records relating to the year 1938

5

(2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 248.

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

23

have got more probative value than the evidence furnished by the

petitioner. But, a perusal of the copy of the Order passed by the

Special Assistant Agent, Peddapuram in LTRP No.43 of 1966 and

LTRP No.30 of 1971 passed by the Agency Divisional Officer,

Peddapuram, which are filed by one Gomu Benna Swamy against

Atapakala Mangamma, paternal grandmother of petitioner, would

make it clear that the said petitions were dismissed holding that

the said Atapakala Mangamma is a tribal and belonged to Konda

Kapu community and the transaction in the said petitions is

between two tribals and the provisions of the Land Transfer and

Regulation 1 of 1959 does not apply. Even, a perusal of the Order

dated 29.12.2004 passed in LTRP No.250 of 2004 by the Special

Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram which was

filed by the Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Rajavommangi

against Atapakala Bennaswamy and others, it was dismissed

holding that they are tribals and are in possession of the

Government Land. Therefore, when the documents adduced by

the petitioner clearly establish that the petitioner’s father and her

paternal grandmother were identified as tribals as Konda Kapu

(ST) community, and the petitioner, being the son of one Benna

Swamy, who is respondent in LTRP No.250 of 2004, who was

declared as a tribal, vide Order, dated 29.12.2004, 1

st

respondent

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

24

confirming the order of 2

nd

respondent on the ground that the

documentary evidence adduced by the Commissioner (Tribal

Welfare) especially the land records relating to the year 1938 have

got more probative value than the evidence furnished by the

petitioner, seems to be absurd.

18. Indeed, the petitioner, though was given ample

opportunities, did not file any recorded evidence before 2

nd

respondent. Mere non adducing documentary evidence on behalf

of petitioner during inquiry either before the Committee or 2

nd

respondent, is not a ground to reject the caste claim of the

petitioner. The burden of demonstrating that a candidate does not

belong to the Scheduled Tribe community is on the authority, who

disputes the social status. As held in Syamala Rama Raju case

(1 supra) it is well-established that children get the social status of

the father. When such is the case, Writ Petitioner, being his son,

would get the same social status of his father. In view of the facts

and circumstances, the impugned Order of 1

st

respondent

confirming the order of 2

nd

respondent in ROC No.C5(M)/

1268/2001, dated 15.09.2005, is liable to be set-aside.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting-aside

the order of 1

st

respondent in G.O.Ms.No.69, Social Welfare

(CV.2) Department, dated 19.06.2009. Consequently, the order of

SRK, J

W.P.No.19409 of 2009

25

2

nd

respondent in Roc.No.C5(M)/1268/2001, dated 15.09.2005 is

also set-aside.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

8

th

January, 2026.

Note:

LR copy to be marked.

B/o.

DNB