HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16069 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity of the order dated 24.2.2004 passed by the Special Deputy Collector(TW), K.R. Puram, the 1st respondent herein. By the aforesaid order, the Special Deputy Collector has ordered for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the possession of the petitioners over the lands covered by R.S. Nos. 64/1D, 64/1E and 64/1F admeasuring Acs.3.86 cents situated in Jainavarigudem Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District is in contravention of Sub-Section (1)(a) of Section 3 of A.P. Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 (for short ‘Regulation 1/59’) as amended by Regulation 1/70. The petitioners herein claimed that they are the owners and possessors of the lands in an extent of Acs.1.18 cents and Acs.1.59 cents in R.S. Nos. 61/1D, 64/1E and 64/1F respectively of Jainavarigudem Village, Buttaigudem Mandal. It is the case of the petitioners that the said property was acquired by their ancestors by way of a registered sale deed as early as on 26.4.1947, after obtaining permission from the Competent Authority. It is stated that earlier basing on a complaint filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, (TW), K.R. Puram, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70 and the 1st respondent after conducting enquiry into the matter held that the petitioners’ possession over the lands in question is not hit by the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulations. Accordingly, the 1st respondent through order dated 14.3.1986 while recording a finding that the possession of the petitioners over the land in question is not hit by the provisions of Regulation 1/59, dropped the said proceedings. Petitioners allege that though on an earlier occasion orders were passed by the Special Deputy Collector dropping the action initiated against the petitioners on the ground that the possession of the petitioners was not hit by Sub-Section (3) of Section (1) of Regulation 1/59, the impugned order was passed by the Special Deputy Collector(TW) by impleading one Yadavolu Venkateswara Rao as a party respondent contrary to the earlier orders passed by the said authority. It is stated that the said Venkatswara Rao is not concerned with the land in question and by impleading such a person as party to the said proceedings and by recording a finding that that person did not respond to the show cause notice, the Special Deputy Collector cannot order for eviction and for taking said land into the Government custody. The petitioners filed the present writ petition questioning the impugned order dated 24.2.2004 of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R. Puram and consequential panchanama dated 10.7.2004. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 9.9.2004 passed interim orders directing the respondents to restore the petition schedule property to the petitioners and allowed them to continue in possession of the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when there is no order transferring the land in favour of Yadavolu Venkateswara Rao, the first respondent cannot issue the impugned proceedings in respect of the very same property, which was found to be in possession of the petitioners. He further submitted that in as much as the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioners on an earlier occasion were dropped by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 9.7.2003, the 1st respondent cannot issue the impugned proceedings once again in respect of the very same property in the name of a third party. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned proceedings be set aside. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents and the allegations of the petitioners remain un- controverted. . However, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents has submitted that as the petitioners failed to produce any documents in proof of their possession and purchase, the impugned order was passed. I have perused the order dated 9.7.2003 of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R. Puram. On a perusal of the said order, it is seen that on an earlier occasion, basing on a complaint filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), K.R Puram that the lands in question are in possession and enjoyment of non-tribals, the Special Deputy Collector conducted enquiry into the matter and passed order on 14.3.1986 holding that the lands in question are not hit by the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulations. While so holding, he disallowed the claim of the Special Deputy Tahsildar. Thereafter, again when the Special Deputy Collector initiated proceedings against the petitioners, petitioners brought to the notice of the Special Deputy Collector (TW) about the aforesaid orders dated 14.3.1986 wherein the Special Deputy Collector recorded a finding that in view of the orders passed by him on 14.3.1986, the matter cannot be reopened. Curiously, in the third round of litigation, proceedings for eviction were initiated against the very same lands without even impleading the petitioners, who were parties to the earlier litigations. The impugned order of eviction was passed against a third party by impleading one Yadavolu Koteswara Rao as party to the said proceedings. The Special Deputy Collector, except stating that the said Koteswara Rao did not respond to the show cause notice, did not even refer to the earlier orders and passed the impugned order directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to take possession of the land. Admittedly, this matter is pending before the Court for the last six years and the respondents without applying their mind to the facts of the case, have ordered for eviction of the petitioners in a quite mechanical and routine manner. It is also not in dispute that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners were dropped by the Special Deputy Collector by recording a finding that possession of the petitioners over the land in question is not hit by Regulation 1/59, as amended by Regulation 1/1970. It is well settled that there is no power of review under the Regulations and unless there is a provision which empowers the authorities to review the orders, the Special Deputy Collector is not entitled to review his own orders and order for eviction of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 24.2.2004 of the Special Deputy Collector and the consequential panchanama dated 10.7.2004 are set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue in possession. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 23rd December, 2010 pnb