THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6520 OF 2004 Dated 22nd December, 2009 Between: B.Somaiah and three others …Petitioners And The Special Deputy Collector and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Ranga Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: No representation The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice dated 21.02.2004, issued by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioners are called upon to attend the enquiry proposed to be held on 10.03.2004. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent No.1. Though the record shows that respondent No.2 was served, there is no appearance on his behalf. The father of the petitioners, a non-tribal, purchased an extent of Ac.1.25 gts; Acs.2.30 gts and Acs.5.00 gts, totalling Acs.9.15 gts, in Survey Nos.293, 294 and 296 respectively of Tadisubhannagudem Village, H/o Naidupeta, Dammapet Mandal, Khammam District, under agreement of sale dated 15.01.1962 from respondent No.2 for a consideration of Rs.7,500/-. He was stated to have taken possession of the said land on the said date. In the year 1974, respondent No.1 registered Case No.1406 of 1974 under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short “the Regulation”) for eviction of the father of the petitioners. He contested the said proceedings by filing relevant record to show that the transaction has taken place on 15.01.1962, before coming into force of the Regulation. A detailed order was passed by respondent No.1 with a finding that the transaction has taken place in the year 1962 and that therefore, the same was not affected by the Regulation. Accordingly, the case was dropped. Another attempt was made to evict the father of the petitioners in the year 2000, by which time he died and his grandson contested the case. By order, dated 14.03.2000, respondent No.1 dropped the proceedings by holding that under the previous order, respondent No.1 dropped the proceedings and that therefore, by operation of doctrine of res judicata, the subsequent proceedings would not lie. About four years later, again the impugned notice has been issued. No counter-affidavit has been filed to justify initiation of fresh proceedings under the impugned notice. From the facts, which are not controverted, it is evident that the petitioners and their family members are being vexed repeatedly. A Division Bench of this Court in Chintalapati Ramalinga Raju v. District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District and another[1], held that when a judgment is rendered under the Regulations, it becomes final and that there can be no review of the said judgment at a later point of time. As proceedings were initiated on two earlier occasions and they were dropped, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to vex the petitioners repeatedly by initiating successive proceedings. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd December, 2009 vrn [1] 2000 (2) ALT 155 (DB)