THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No.21612 of 2011 Dated: 10.08.2011 Between: Kandimalla Sudha .. Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And 4 others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21612 of 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.5-00 cents of land situated in Sy.No.156/40, Annaram Village, Manuguru Mandal of Khammam District, having purchased the same from the respondent No.5 under an Agreement of Sale, dated 4.4.1969. It is not in dispute that the land in question is notified as the scheduled area and the writ petitioner is a non-tribal. At the instance of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), Bhadrachalam, though proceedings were initiated in the year 2000 under A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) alleging that the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner was null and void, after due enquiry the proceedings were dropped vide order dated 5.2.2001, passed by the respondent No.3 Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam, holding that the transfer in question was between two non-tribals and that it had taken place prior to enforcement of Regulation 1 of 1970. Despite the said order, on a report of the Tahsildar, Manuguru – respondent No.4 herein – dated 10.03.2008 fresh proceedings were initiated under Regulation 1 of 1959 on the very same allegation that the transfer of the property in question in favour of the petitioner had been made in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959. However the said proceedings were also dropped by the respondent No.3 by order dated 30.05.2008 in view of the earlier order dated 5.2.2001. Against the said order, dated 30.05.2008, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2. Having entertained the said appeal (CMA No.9 of 2009), the respondent No.2 by order dated 13.05.2009 granted stay of the 3rd respondent’s order dated 30.05.2008. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.14560 of 2009 contending that the appeal itself was not maintainable as the 4th respondent – Tahsildar – was not an aggrieved party. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.07.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the respondent No.2 for vacating the order of stay and directing the respondent No.2 herein to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2010 in CMA No.9 of 2009. The said application was dismissed by the respondent No.2 by order dated 18.06.2011 and aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed. Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the respondent No.4, who is not an aggrieved party, has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 30.05.2008 and therefore the 2nd respondent ought not to have entertained the appeal under Section 3 (3) of the Regulation 1 of 1959. It is thus contended that the impugned order dated 18.06.2011 being ex facie illegal is liable to be set aside. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the material available on record. A plain reading of Section 3 (3) (a) of Regulation 1 of 1959 which provides for a remedy of appeal shows that an appeal is maintainable against any decree or order made under sub-section (2) of Section 3 and there is nothing to show that the appeal can be maintained only by an aggrieved party. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tahsildar - respondent No.4 – not being an aggrieved party has no locus standi cannot be accepted. Admittedly the order dated 30.05.2008 which is the subject-matter of appeal before the respondent No.2 was not passed on merits, but the proceedings were dropped merely on the ground that the earlier order dated 5.2.2001 operated as res judicata. In SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (TRIBAL WELFARE) v. DATLA VENKAPATHI RAJU[1], it was held by the Division Bench that where the issue that arose for decision in the earlier proceedings and in the fresh proceedings is different and where the parties to the proceedings are different, the fresh proceedings cannot held to be illegal. In the said decision, the Division Bench has also accepted the view expressed in G. RAGHAVULU vs. AGENT TO GOVERNMENT[2] that the principle of res judicata shall be applied with caution in dealing with a case arising under the Regulation meant for the protection of the tribes and if the proceedings were dropped earlier for the reason that the tribal could not produce sufficient evidence, it does not preclude a subsequent enquiry. Thus it is clear that the initiation of fresh proceedings despite the earlier order dated 5.2.2001 is not per se illegal and that the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the fresh proceedings has to be decided after due enquiry. Having regard to the settled principle of law, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the appeal at the instance of the 4th respondent is not maintainable at all. Hence the impugned order dated 18.6.2011 warrants no interference and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 10.08.2011 gbs [1] 2002 (4) ALT 669 (D.B.) [2] 1994 (2) An.W.R. 216