APHC010166062015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11481/2015 Between: 1. KATURI JANAKIRAM, S/O.ADINARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.SAMALKOT VILLAGE & MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ADDL AGRENT TO GOVT E G DIST 4, RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (T.W.), RAMPACHODAVARAM, E.G.DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI.SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE (LTR-2) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT HYDERABAD. 5. I VIMALAMMA DIED AS PER L R R6, W/O.SAMSON, R/O.GONDULU (V), ADDATEEGALA (M), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 6. INDUGABILLI GANGA RAJU, S/O LATE SAMSON, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O D.NO.1-78, GONDOLU VILLAGE, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, A.S.R DISTRICT.(ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). R6 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.R OF THE DECEASED 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.11.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 4th respondent in G.O.Ms.No.10, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, Dt.1-2-2013 rejecting the revision and thereby confirming the orders passed by the 1st respondent in CMA No.10/2004, dt.22-10-2005 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set aside the G.O.Ms.No.10, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, Dt.1-2-2013 issued by the 4th respondent in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 15183 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.8.00 cents in Sy.No:80/1 and 80/2 of Gondulu Village, Addateegala Mandal East Godavary District in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 4741 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in WP MP . No. 15183 of 2015 in WP NO. 11481 of 2015 dated 21-4-2015 and pass 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition No. 11481 of 2015 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the petitioner as Legal Representative (L.R.) of respondent No.5 (I.Vimalamma) to come on record in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T N M RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) 2. BS KARTIK PRASAD ESR 3. MUSUDI BABJI 4. P PADMA RAO The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.11481 of 2015 O R D E R: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders passed by Respondent No.4 in G.O.Ms.No.10, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, dated 01.02.2013, rejecting the revision and confirming the orders in C.M.A. No.10 of 2004, dated 22.10.2005, passed by Respondent No.1 as arbitrary and contrary to law and facts. 2. The facts leading to this case are as follows:- The grandfather of the Petitioner by name late Chaliki Krishna Murthy, is said to have purchased an extent of Ac.19.20 Cents of land in Survey Nos.80/1, 80/2, 70/2, and 70/3 of Gondulu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, under a registered sale deed, vide document No.244/49, dated 10.03.1949, from one Indulapalli Gangulu. The land is situated in a scheduled area, and the Petitioner is non-tribal. It is stated that the mother of the Petitioner succeeded to the property as the sole legal heir. 5 3. While so, Special Deputy Tahasildar, Tribal Welfare, Addateegala filed a complaint before the Respondent No.2 under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 [Regulation No.I of 1959] (hereinafter referred to as „the Regulation‟) for restoration of land mentioned to the Government from the mother of the Petitioner i.e., Katuri Seshayamma and Respondent No.5 i.e., late Indugabilli Vimalamma. The case was registered as L.T.R.P.No.308 of 2002 and the Respondent No.2 (Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Rampachodavram, East Godavari District) vide orders dated 26.09.2003 dismissed the case and directed the Respondent No.3 to restore Ac.8.00 Cents in Survey No.80-1 and 80-2 to Respondent No.1 and the balance extent of land of Ac.8.32 Cents in Survey No.80-1 and 80-2 to the Respondent No.2. 4. The Respondent No.5 filed an appeal thereon, questioning the orders of Respondent No.2 under Section 3(3)(a)(b) of the Regulation and Rule 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Rules, 1969, before Respondent No.1. Curiously, the Respondent No.1/Appellate 6 Authority, vide orders dated 22.10.2005, set aside the orders passed by Respondent No.2 in L.T.R.P.No.308 of 2002 and ordered for restoration of the entire scheduled property to the Government for onward assignment to eligible tribes and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The Respondent No.3/Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to comply with the orders and to send compliance report. 5. Thereupon, the mother of the Petitioner i.e., Katuri Seshayamma, filed a revision before the Government questioning the said orders. No revision was filed by the Respondent No.5. The Government after considering the submissions of the Revision-Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 dismissed the revision vide G.O.Ms.No.10, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, dated 01.02.2013. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. Respondent No.5 filed a counter affidavit, and during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, Respondent No. 5 died, and her son, i.e., Respondent No.6 was brought on record. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.5, it was stated 7 that the extent of Ac.19.20 Cents in Sy.No.80/1, 80/2, 70/2, and 70/3 situated in Gondulu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, belongs to her father-in-law by name Indulapalli Gangulu under a resettlement patta in the year 1932. It was further submitted that in the year 1978, the then Special Deputy Tahasildar/Respondent No.3 filed L.T.R.P.No.459 of 1978 under Section 3 of the Regulation against the father of the Writ Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.5 and her family members. 7. After due examination of the case, Respondent No.2 passed orders for ejectment of the father of the Petitioner i.e., late Katuri Adinarayana Murthy and another person namely Palacharla Sree Ramulu from the scheduled property and further directed the property be restored to the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 with standing crops, trees, timber, etc., if any. 8. It was further submitted that the orders were confirmed by Respondent No.1 vide orders dated 29.11.1987. It was further submitted that the appeal (C.M.A.No.02 of 1988) filed thereon before the Respondent No.1 was dismissed and the 8 orders passed in L.T.R.P.No.456 of 1978 attained finality. It is further submitted that the mother of the Petitioner had filed O.S.No.12 of 1990 (suit for ejection of the defendants over the scheduled property) before the agent to the Government against Respondent No.5/late Indugabilli Vimalamma and another person namely Indugabilli Ganga Raju for ejection. 9. The learned Trial Court after examining the pleadings and the evidence on record, dismissed the suit and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala Mandal, who was appointed as receiver during the pendency of the suit was directed to deliver the possession of the properties. It was further submitted that an appeal i.e., A.S.No.596 of 1995 was filed before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed for default on 24.03.2014. 10. While so, after all the proceedings have attained finality, the Special Deputy Tahasildar, Addateegala Mandal again initiated a case under Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 vide L.T.R.P.No.308 of 2002 against the mother of the Petitioner namely Katuri Seshayyamma and Respondent No.5. These proceedings led 9 to the passing of impugned orders. Contentions:- 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the authorities did not consider the Registered Sale Deed (No.244/1949, dated 10.03.1949), which stands in favour of the paternal grandfather of the Petitioner and without considering the said sale deed, the impugned orders were passed. It was further submitted that the mother of the Petitioner had succeeded to the property through a registered will, dated 11.03.1972, which was executed by late Chaliki Krishna Murthy. Learned counsel further submitted that as the sale deed is prior to the year 1970, the bar under the Regulation cannot be pressed in this case, and Judgments of this Court on this aspect were cited. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 submitted that the initiation of the fresh L.T.R.P proceedings vide L.T.R.P.No.308 of 2002 was wholly uncalled for, as the orders have attained finality in L.T.R.P.No.456 of 1978 as confirmed in C.M.A.No.02 of 1988. It was further submitted that the suit filed 10 thereon for recovery of possession had attained finality and without examining these aspects, the impugned proceedings came to be passed. 13. Heard the counsels. 14. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (T.W), Addateegala Mandal had initiated action under Section 3 of the Regulation against Katuri Adinarayana, Palacharla Sree Ramulu for restoration of land to government with regard to the very same scheduled land situated in Survey Nos.80/1, 80/2, 70/2, 70/3 of an extent of Ac.1.28 Cents, Ac.15.08 Cents, Ac.1.16 Cents, Ac.1.68 Cents respectively. 15. The Respondent No.5 and her family members were also arrayed as Respondent Nos.3 to 8 in the said proceedings. In the counter affidavit filed by Katuri Adi Narayana, it was stated that the scheduled properties were purchased under a registered sale deed, dated 18.03.1949 and wife of the Katuri Adi Narayana namely Katuri Seshayamma had succeeded to the said property under registered will, dated 11.03.1972 and that they were in continuous and uninterrupted possession of 11 the said land all the time. 16. In the enquiry, one Indugabilli Samsenu i.e., husband of Respondent No.5 was examined as RW.1 and he deposed that the scheduled land was locally called as “Gocheela Beedu” and that his father Indugubilli Gangulu had reclaimed the land by removing the scrub jungle. It was further deposed that his father Indugubilli Gangulu had mortgaged the scheduled property to Adimolum Ramaswami and he had sold the property to Chaliki Krishna Murthy of Samarlakota for Rs.1,000/-. It was further deposed that Katuri Adi Narayana and Palacharla Sree Ramulu are not in actual possession of the property. During the pendency of the enquiry, Indugubilli Samsenu had expired and his legal representatives were brought on record as Respondent Nos.4 to 8 in the said proceedings. 17. Thereafter, the Respondent No.5 was also examined and she reiterated what was said by her husband Indugubilli Samsenu and stated that they belong to „Madiga‟ caste. The Respondent No.2 after examining all the villagers held that the 12 possession of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not be established through the Indugubilli family and therefore, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein were directed to deliver the possession to Respondent Nos.4 to 8 vide order dated 29.11.1987. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:- “6) Now therefore, in exercise of the Powers conferred by Sec.3(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) L.T.R.1/1959. I, N. Ramarao Patnaik, Deputy Collector (T.W.) Rampachodavaram hereby decree ejectment against the said Sri Katuri Adinarayana and Palacherla Sreeramulu in possession of the property aforesaid and further direct that the said property be restored to the legal heirs of the Transferor i.e., Respondents 4 to 8 with standing crop, trees, timber, etc. if any.” “7) Regarding the petition Schedule land in S.No.70/2 and 70/3 they were restored to Government and I hereby direct the Special Deputy Tahsildar (T.W.) to put the said property in possession or the Village Assistant by removing any person bound by the decree who may refuse to vacate and submit delivery receipt to this office. I hereby direct that the special Deputy Tahsildr (T.W.) Addateegala to put the said transferor his legal heirs by removing any person bound by the decree who may refuse to vacate the same. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (T.W.) Addateegala should carryout eviction and submit delivery receipt to this office.” 18. The said order was confirmed in appeal vide C.M.A.No.02 of 1988. 19. In the year-1990, the mother of the Petitioner i.e., Katuri Seshayamma filed suit bearing O.S.No.12 of 1990 in the Court 13 of Agent to the Government against Respondent No.5 and Indugubilli Ganga Raju for possession and for permanent injunction of very same scheduled property. The schedule of the property covered in O.S.No.12 of 1990 was identical to L.T.R.P.No.456 of 1978 relating to the extent of Ac.19.20 Cents situated in Sy.Nos.80/1, 80/2, 70/2, and 70/3 of Gondole Village of Addateegala Mandal. 20. The plea for recovery of possession was based on a registered sale deed, dated 10.03.1949 and subsequently executed a registered will, dated 11.03.1972. 21. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues as extracted under:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed in the suit? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past and future mesne profits? 5. Whether the defendants are Valmikes or Schedule Caste? 6. Whether the proceedings in L.T.R.P.No.456/78 is binding on the Plaintiff or not? 7. whether the plea taken by the defendants that they were in life possession against the plaintiff is true, legal and valid? 8. To what relief?” 14 22. After due enquiry, the trial Court rejected the case of the Petitioner and the findings on Issue Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are extracted below:- “ISSUES: 1, 2, 3 and 4: The Spl. Dy. Tahsildar (T.W), Addateegala filed a LTRP Case No.456/78 on the file of the Dy. Collector (T.W) R.Chodavaram in the year 1978, for restoration of the following P.S. lands to Government from Katuri Adinarayana, the husband of the plaintiff and 7 others.” Sy.Nos. Ac. 80/1 Ac.1.28 80/2 Ac.15.08 70/2 Ac.1.16 70/3 Ac.1.68 Ac.19.20 “After due enquiry the S.D.C. (T.W.) passed orders to restore the lands in S.Nos. 80/1 and 80/2 to Indugupalli Vimalamma and indugu palli Gangaraju, who are the defendants in the present suit. These lands stands registered in the name of Indugupalli Gangulu, the father in-law of Indugupalli Vimalamma in 1932 Resettlement. Regarding S.lo.70/2 and 70/3 the lands ordered to be restored to the Government, as the defendants are in no way concerned with the lands. Katuri Adinarayana husband of the plaintiff preferred an appeal in CMA 2/88 against the orders of the S.D.C (T.W) and the Agent to Government in his order dt. 25.4.88 dismissed the appeal observing that there is no valid reason to interfere with the orders passed by the lower court. The entire P.S. land in O.S.No.12/90 is covered with LTRP case No.456/78. The Plaintiff's husband Katuri Adinarayana is the 1st respondent in LTRP case No.456/78. It is seen from the LTRP case, that the P.S land mortgaged by Indugupalli Gangulu infavour of Adimlam Ramaswamy, who is a non-tribal for an amount of Rs.25/- and no permission obtained for the transaction. Adimulam Ramaswamy again sold the said land to Chiliki Krishna Murthy, who is another non-tribal through a registered sale deed dt.18.03.1949. Chiliki Krishna Murthy has given these lands to his daughter. Katuru Seshayamma, who is the plaintiff in the present suit, by way of succession through Registered will No. 7 of 1972 dt.11.3.72. The transaction of immovable property in the schedule area by a Hill tribe to non tribal after 14.8.1917 without prior permission of the prescribed authority is null and void U/s 4(1) of Act I of 1917. 15 The transaction in between Indugupalli Gangulu, a Hill tribe and Adimulam Ramaswamy a non-tribal was in contravention of Section 4(1) of Act, 1917 and it is null and void. As the first transaction is null and void, all subsequent transactions will also become null and void. The plaintiff's father, who is a non- tribal acquired the P.S.land in Schedule area in contravention of Section 4(1) of Act, 1917. In the present suit the plaintiff being non-tribal cannot claim the land in Agency Tracts without having valid grounds and evidentiary proof. Hence the plaintiff has not entitled for declaration of the title over the P.S.land. As such the plaintiff has not entitled for a permanent injunction or damages or past and future mesne profits over the P.S.land.” 23. The Trial Court also referred to the orders in L.T.R.P.No.456 of 1978 and as confirmed in C.M.A.No.02 of 1988. Questioning the above orders, the A.S.No.596 of 1995 was filed before this court and the same was dismissed for default on 24.03.2014. The findings in L.T.R.P.No.456 of 1978 as well as in O.S.No.12 of 1990 attained finality. 24. During the pendency of O.S.No.12 of 1990, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala was appointed as receiver and consequent of the dismissal of the suit, the receiver was directed to deliver the possession to the Defendants i.e., Respondent No.5 and another person namely Indugupalli Gangaraju. In the suit, the sale deed relied upon by the Petitioner dated 18.03.1949 was considered at length and declared to be null and void, as the same was in contravention 16 with Section 4(1) of the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917. 25. Curiously, after these findings had attained finality, the Special Deputy Tahasildar (Tribal Welfare) again mischievously initiated a fresh round of action under Section 3 of the Regulation. 26. In the second round, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (T.W) Addateegala again filed L.T.R.P.No.308/2002 under Regulation 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Respondent No.2 after noting the orders passed in L.T.R.P.No.459 of 1978 as confirmed in C.M.A.No.02 of 1988 and findings of O.S.No.12 of 1990, held that as per the sale deed No.251/32, dated 08.03.1932, Indugapalle Gangulu and his sons sold Ac.8.00 Cents to Adimulam Ramaswamy and this sale deed was validated on the ground that the sale deed mentions the vendor/Indugupalli Gangulu as „Indian Christian‟ and therefore, the bar under the Agency Tracts Interest And Land Transfer Act, 1917 would not apply to the sale deed. It was further held that the „Madiga‟ 17 community was notified as hill tribe vide G.O.Ms.No.1891, dated 02.11.1939. 27. As regards, the sale deed (Doc.No.244 of 1949) dated 10.03.1949 it was held that no evidence is available regarding the right of Adimolum Ramaswami to execute sale deed in favour of Chaliki Krishna Murthy and it was presumed that the transfer of Ac.8.36 Cents was subsequent to the G.O., which notified the „Madiga‟ caste as hill tribe. 28. It was in that context, the Respondent No.2 while dismissing the L.T.R.P.No.308 of 2002, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala to restore Ac.8.00 Cents in Survey No.80-1 and 80-2 to Respondent No.1 and the balance to Respondent No.2. In the appeal filed by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 held that the entire scheduled property should be restored to the Government. The revision filed thereon was dismissed. 29. Firstly, the question that needs to be addressed is whether the second complaint is maintainable by the authorities under the scheme of the Regulation. A Division 18 Bench of this court in W.A.No.1419 of 2008 considered this aspect at length and held that second complaint cannot be maintained in the absence of allegations of fraud. The Paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 are extracted below:- “9. It is settled, in matters concerning transaction from a tribal to a non-tribal, based on an allegation of fraud, that second enquiry is permissible when first enquiry remained inconclusive or findings in the first enquiry against the tribal were recorded due to his incapacity to produce evidence. However, when the first enquiry did not suffer from any lacunae, the 2nd enquiry would be barred under the principle of res judicata. This principle has been laid down by this Court in Gaddam Raghavulu (supra) in the following words: “The principle of res judicata or a principle analogous thereto shall be applied with caution and circumspection in dealing with a case arising under the Regulation meant for the protection of the tribes. If the proceedings were dropped earlier for the reason that the 3 rd respondent-tribal could not produce sufficient evidence, it does not preclude a subsequent enquiry. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel in this regard.” “10. Learned single Judge has referred to the judgment in Datla Venkatapathi Raju, relied on by the Government Pleader and rightly distinguished the same, because in the said matter, issues were different and it was decided on the basis of the facts of that case only.” “11. Although the principle of res judicata was not specifically dealt with in the Division Bench judgment in Chintalapati Ramalinga Raju v. District Collector, Eluru, W.G. District – 2000 (4) ALD 443(DB), it was specifically observed therein that when a judgment is rendered under the Regulations, it becomes final and there is no review of the same; resultantly, if there is no review under the Regulations, maintainability of the subsequent proceedings would be barred by res judicata subject to the limitations, as held by this Court in Gaddam Raghavulu (supra).” 30. A similar view was taken in W.A.No.1342 of 2025 by another Division Bench of this court. It is not the case of 19 anyone that the orders passed in the previous round of litigation were bad on account of any of the exceptions mentioned in the above case. In the absence of the same, the very initiation of the enquiry in the second round of litigation is barred by the principles of Res judicata. Even otherwise, the exception in the Gaddam Ramulu case was when the proceedings initiated at the instance of the tribe were dropped or remained inconclusive on account of non-production of documents. In this case, that was not so and the exception would not be of any avail to the Petitioner. 31. In the reasoning in L.T.R.P.No.308 of 2002, the Respondent No.2 holds that as the sale deed, dated 08.03.1932 was not produced, therefore the findings in L.T.R.P.No.459 of 1978 would not be a Res judicata. This reasoning is unsustainable and runs contrary to the principle of constructive Res judicata. The Respondent No.2 failed to see that the O.S.No.12 of 1990 was filed by the mother of the Petitioner and they had all the time to produce the documents. The findings in the suit O.S.No.12 of 90 are binding on the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner, being a non-tribe, having 20 not pursued the Appeal filed before this court, cannot take advantage of his own lapse. 32. It would be relevant to refer to the observations on the aspect of Res judicata in M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408 at Paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 18:- “12. The principles of res judicata are of universal application as they are based on two age-old principles, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eademn causa meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of res judicata is common to all civilised system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should for ever set the controversy at rest. 13. That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties. 18. Therefore, any proceeding which has been initiated in breach of the principle of res judicata is prima facie a proceeding which has been initiated in abuse of the process of court.” 21 33. Another curious facet of the case is that Respondent No.2 dismissed the L.T.R.P.No.308 of 2002, yet directs the M.R.O, Addateegala to restore Ac.8-00 Cents to Petitioner and balance to Respondent No.2. The Appellate authority goes a step further and without referring to the findings in the suit, holds that the sales were effected by non-tribals, but without permission of the agent to the government as provided in Agency Act, 1917 and hence the entire property be restored to the Government. This is a fundamental error, as section 4(1) of the Agency Act, 1917, only requires permission when the sale is to be effected by “Hill tribes”. 34. For the aforesaid reasons, the very initiation of L.T.R.P.No.308 of 2002 and consequential appellate and revisional proceedings are declared to be bad and contrary to law and the judgements of Hon‟ble Division Bench as mentioned supra. 35. With the above observation, the Writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 04.05.2026 chs 23 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO:11481/2015 Dt. 04.05.2026 chs