( 1 ) IN this writ petition, order dated 30. 4. 1999 passed by the Special deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Kota ramachandra Puram (SDC) - second respondent herein; is challenged as illegal and arbitrary and also seeking an order to set aside the same. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of agricultural land acs. 3. 54 in R. S. No. 22/1, Acs. 3. 52 in r. S. No. 22/2 and Acs. 3. 26 in R. S. No. 29 (total extent of Acs. 10. 32) situated at nuthiramannapalem Village of Buttaigudem mandal in West Godavari District (hereafter called, the petition schedule land ). He inherited the property from his mother, bondala Narasamma. His mother purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 31. 10. 1957 from Dharanikota durgamma, who being the only daughter of rondala Narayana succeeded to it. The property was originally owned by one pouloju Brahmam @ Brahmaiah of Koya community, a Scheduled Tribe. He sold the property to one Podium Ramudu, another Scheduled Tribe (Koya ). After death of Podium Ramudu, his son Podium chellappa obtained permission from Special assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam, dated 28. 3. 1942. He along with his three minor brothers sold the property in favour of bondala Narayana, father of vendor of petitioner's mother. In view of this, petitioner contends that the transaction is not prohibited by Andhra Pradesh Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917, or Andhra pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation I of 1970 (the Regulation, for brevity ).

( 2 ) IN 1977, Podium Veeraswamy dora, father of fourth respondent herein, filed SR No. 26 of 1977 before the second respondent under Section 3 (2) of the regulation alleging that the mother of the petitioner Bondala Narasamma (who was shown as second respondent in the said case) is in possession of the land belonging to Veeraswamy. The matter was contested and after examining various documents including the permission granted by Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam, by order dated 27. 10. 1970, second respondent dismissed complaint of the father of fourth respondent.

( 3 ) IN 1988, fourth respondent herein filed yet another complaint under Section 3 (2)of the Regulation being SR No. 617 of 1998 before the second respondent. A plea was taken that the sale by Podium chellappa in favaour of Bondala narayana is not void as prior permission was obtained from competent authority i. e. , special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam. A plea of res judicata was also raised. The second respondent, after considering the evidence produced, allowed S. R. No. 617 of 1998 in favour of fourth respondent and while directing the ejectment of the petitioner's mother from the land, ordered restoration of the land to the tribal. This order is assailed in the writ petition seeking invalidation of panchanama dated 22. 4. 2002 conducted by the authorities pursuant to the order of the second respondent.

( 4 ) THE second respondent filed counter-affidavit alleging that the Government of Andhra Pradesh conducted survey in the scheduled areas of West Godavari District in 1998 that during the said survey facts came to light that the ancestors of the petitioner fraudulently obtained sale deeds from tribals and therefore the complaint given by the fourth respondent was treated as a case under Section 3 (2) of the Regulation. It is further alleged that as the parties in s. R. No. 26 of 1977 are not the same, principle of res judicata does not apply. The writ petition is also opposed contending that the petitioner has not availed effective alternative remedy of appeal before the agent to the Government.

( 5 ) THE fourth respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. He pleaded that the petitioner is not the owner of the land and that the land belongs to Pouloju Veeraswamy Dora, father of fourth respondent. The present writ petition without availing effective alternative remedy of appeal, is not maintainable. The petitioner bel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document