B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by mallina Venkatarao with a prayer to issue a direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the Special deputy Collector (TW), K. R. Puram in s. R. No. 58/99 dated 30-12-1999 as illegal, arbitrary without having any power under the provisions of A. P. Scheduled Areas land Transfer Regulation 1/59 as amended by 1/70 (for short the Regulation ). ( 2 ) IT is stated in the writ affidavit that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of land to an extent of Ac. 1. 57 cents in r. S. No. 75 of Koyarajahmundry Village, buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District his father Subba Rao along with others purchased lands including the land in r. S. No. 75 from Chebokula Subbanna under a registered sale deed No. 1275 dated 19. 8. 1960. The said Chebokula Subbanna purchased the lands through a registered sale deed dated 8. 6. 1952 from Chapala dharmaraju who is a non-tribal. After the death of Subba Rao, the petitioner and his brother Janardhana Rao have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question. After commencement of the Regulation, Special Deputy Collector, tribal Welfare-II, K. R. Puram has filed a complaint against the petitioner and his brother Janardhana Rao in S. R. No. 776 of 1990 before the Court of Special Deputy collector (TW), K. R. Puram-R2 herein under Section 3 (2) (a) of the Regulation seeking declaration that the sale transaction as null and void and for eviction of the petitioner and his brother from the scheduled land and assign the same to landless poor. A notice in Form E was issued to the petitioner and his brother on 25. 3. 1991. In compliance with the said notice the petitioner appeared before R2 and produced the necessary documents evidencing the purchase of the land by his father and got himself examined as RW. 1. The Special deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, k. R. Puram-R2 herein, on considering the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the schedule mentioned lands were never held by any tribal at any point of time and therefore there was no contravention of the provisions of the regulation and thereby disallowed the claim filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, tribal Welfare-II, K. R. Puram by an order dated 5. 6. 6. 1991 in S. R,no. 776/90. The special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare-II, k. R. Puram did not chose to carry the matter in an appeal and thereby the order passed by R2 herein attained finality. While so, the Mandal Revenue Officer- 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 8. 6. 1999 directed Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW) II, R. K. Puram to file a complaint against the petitioner in respect of the self same land under the provisions of the regulation. R2 herein initiated the proceedings in S. R. No. 58/99 and passed an ex parte order of ejectment of the petitioner from the schedule land. R2 herein has passed ex parte orders of ejectment in more than 200 cases and one of the land owners has filed a criminal case against the then Special Deputy Collector, Tribal welfare, K. R. Puram on the ground that he signed on the ejectment orders after his retirement from service and the same is pending investigation. After registration of the crime against the then Special Deputy collector; the District Collector, West godavari District seized the records and recorded a statement from the staff of the concerned office R2 herein is not empowerd to review the orders passed under the Regulation since there is no provision enabling him to review his own orders. A similar question came up in w. A. No. 1595 of 1999 wherein a Division bench of our High Court held that the provisions of the Regulation do not empower the Special Deputy Collector, tribal Welfare, K. R. Puram to review his earlier order. Thus, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and the same is to be declared as null and void. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri. P. R. K. Amarendra kumar, learned Counsel appearing for writ petitioner and the Government Pleader for social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that when once the Special Deputy collector, Tribal Welfme, K. R. Puram concluded the proceedings initiated against the petitioners holding that the purchase of lands by the father of the petitioner was not in contravention of the Regulation, it was not open to the self same authority to entertain the proceedings once again. In other words he submits that the Regulation does not empower R2 to review his own orders which attained finality and therefore the impugned order reviewing the earlier order dated 5. 6. 1991 passed in s. R. No. 776/90 suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and thereby the impugned order is to be declared as null and void. He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment. of our High Court in C. Ramalinga Raju v. District Collector, Eluru, W. G. Dist. , 2000 (4) ALD 443 (DB), wherein it has been held that the order passed under the regulation cannot be reviewed in the absence of any enabling provision in the said Regulation. ( 5 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for social Welfare appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the principle of resjudicata has no application to the facts of the case on hand and therefore there is no bar for the 2nd respondent to initiate proceedings under Regulation for restoration of the land to the real uibal and therefore the impugned order is legal and proper. He would contend that since the provisions of the Regulation provide a statutory remedy to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order the writ petition filed by the petitioner without exhausting the statutory remedy is liable to be dismissed in limini. ( 6 ) BEFORE dwelling on the rival contentions I make myself clear that the -Special Deputy Collector (TW), K. P. Puram 2nd respondent initiated proceedings on the complaint filed by Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW ). No. II, K. R. Puram for ejectment of the writ petitioner and his brother M jagannadha Rao on the ground that sale of lands are in contravention of section 3 (2) (a) of the Regulation. A notice in Form E under Rules 7 (2) of A. P. S. A. L. T. Rules, 1969 was issued to the writ petitioner and his brother M Jagannadha Rao on 20-3-1991 calling upon them to explain as to why they should not be ejected from the schedule lands and restore the same to the original tribal or their legal heirs. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, the writ petitioner entered appearance before Special Deputy collector (TW), K. R. Puram-2nd respondent and placed on record both ocular and documentary evidence. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, the writ petitioner entered appearance before Special Deputy collector (TW), K. R. Puram-2nd respondent and placed on record both ocular and documentary evidence. The 2nd respondent considered the evidence brought on record and recorded a finding that the schedule mentioned lands were never held by tribals and there was no contravention of the regulation and thereby dismissed the claim of Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare- ii, K. R. Puram by an order dated 5. 9. 1991. For better appreciation I may refer the relevant portion of the order dated 5. 9. 1991 passed in S. R. 776 of 1990 and it is thus:"i have examined the evidence adduced and the records made available before me. As per Ex. R. 1 which is a copy of the sale deed dated 19. 8. 1960, the deponent s father got the lands from non-tribals and since then the lands are under the possession and enjoyment of the deponent s family. As seen from Ex. R2 which is a copy of the EC for the period from 1916 to 1959, there were no further transactions during the said period. As seen from ex. R. 3, which is a copy of the sale deed dated 10-7-1936, the lands under reference purchased by non-tribals from the Koyas namely Sri Made Veeraswamy and venkataswamy after obtaining the permission from the Asst. Agent, Bhadrachalam in his letter L. Dis. 3400/35 dated 20-10-1935. And it is found that the schedule mentioned lands were never held by tribals. In view of the facts, I conclude that there is no contravention of the Provisions of the a. P. S. A. L. T. Regulations 1/59 as amended by 1/70 read with A. T. I, and L. T. A. , 1917. " ( 7 ) THE subject-matter of the lands covered under the order dated 5. 6. 1991 passed in S. R. 776/90 are as follows: name of the village: Koyarajinmundry name of the Mandal: Buttaigudem