Judgment : The challenge in this Writ Petition is the order dated 14-9-2007 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam Division, Bhadrachalam, Khamma District, in case No.1277/1994/DMPT. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.11-17 guntas in Sy.No.76/A and Ac.5-20 guntas in Sy.No.77, situated at Mallaram Revenue Village, Dhammapeta Mandal, Khammam District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 15-3-1969 from Ravu Satyanarayana. Her vendor purchased the lands from Malla Gangadhara Rama Rao under registered sale deed No.691/1968. Proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970 for eviction of the petitioner from the lands in her occupation on the ground that transfer of lands in her favour is in violation of the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 read with 1 of 1970. The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Paloncha, after due enquiry, came to the conclusion that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970 and thereby dropped the proceedings, by order dated 26-3-1994. The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam, took the sue motu enquiry and reopened the issue and conducted further enquiries and proceeded to declare that the alienation in favour of the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 and thereby ordered for ejectment of the petitioner from the lands in her occupation, by order dated 14-9-2007. Hence, this Writ Petition assailing the order of the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam Division, Khammam. Rule Nisicame to be issued on 18-12-2007. Interim stay of the order dated 14-9-2007 passed in Case No.1277/1994/DMPT came to be issued on the even date vide W.P.M.P.No.35322 of 2007. Respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.2207 of 2007 with prayer to vacate the interim stay granted in W.P.M.P.No.35322 of 2007. When the Vacate Stay Petition came up for consideration, with the consent of Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.2207 of 2007 with prayer to vacate the interim stay granted in W.P.M.P.No.35322 of 2007. When the Vacate Stay Petition came up for consideration, with the consent of Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there was no fresh material before the 1st respondent to review the order dated 26-3-1994 passed in LTR Case No.1489/93/DPT., and therefore the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is without application of mind and the same is not sustainable under law. He placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in MALLINA VENKATARAO v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU ( 2005 (4) ALD 498 ). It is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare that the writ petitioner has a statutory remedy of an appeal under the provisions of the Regulations and therefore the Writ Petition does not lie. It is well settled that the fact that there exists remedy by way of an appeal could not come in the way of this Court entertaining the Writ Petition for the reasons that the orders under challenge suffered from non-application of mind as there is lack of competency vide decision of this Court in N.DURGA RAO v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (TRIBAL WELFARE) ( 2003 (3) ALT 453 = 2003 (6) ALD (NOC) 68). Admittedly, the 2nd respondent has taken up the review of the earlier order dated 26-3-1994 passed in LTR Case No.1489/93/DPTsue motu. There was no fresh material to initiate proceedings sue motu for review of the earlier order. The order passed in LTR Case No.1489/93/DPT attained finality since the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Paloncha, did not choose to carry the matter in an appeal. Unless there is some fresh material as said by the Division Bench of this Court in Mallina Venkatarao’s case (referred 1 above), subsequent proceedings are incompetent. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the 1st respondent in case No.1277/1994/DMPT cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. As sequel to it, interim stay granted in W.P.M.P.No.35322 of 2007 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.