A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) ASSAILING the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Agent to the Government (District Collector), Khammam in c. M. A. NO. 17/97 dt. 13-1-2000, the present writ petition is filed. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is the owner and possessor of land situated in s. No. 45 to an extent of Ac. 5-00 at venkatapuram village (Nugur) of khammam District having purchased the same from the third respondent by way of simple sale deed dt. 20-9-1960. At the time of purchase, the respondent No. 3 belongs to Nayaka community and is not a tribe. It is only in the year 1976, the President of india amended the Presidential Order, 1950 notifying Nayaka community as Scheduled tribe. Venkatapuram village (Nugur) of venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District is one of the Scheduled areas notified by the president of India under 5th Schedule of constitution. A. P. Scheduled Areas Land transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short land transfer Regulation No. 1/59) came into force with effect from 4-3-59 in the scheduled areas of the Districts of East godavari, West Godavari, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam. By Land Transfer regulation No. 2/63, the said Land Transfer regulation No. 1/59 has been extended to the scheduled areas in the Districts of adilabad, Warangal, Khammam and mahabubnagar with effect from 1-12-1963. Though the petitioner is in possession of the property since 1960 a complaint was filed in 1982 by the third respondent before the first respondent stating that the transfer of immovable property is contrary to regulation 3 (1) (a) of Land Transfer regulation No. 1/59 as amended by amending Act No. 1/70. The first respondent who conducted an enquiry on the said complaint in Case No. 243/84/ vngr dt. 8-1-85 held that the transaction took place prior to enforcement of Land transfer Regulation No. 1/59 in the khammam District, hence sale is not hit by the provisions of Land Transfer Regulation no. 1/59 and the proceedings were withdrawn. After long lapse of 121/2 years the third respondent filed an appeal in c. M. A. No. 17/97 before the second respondent-Agent to the Government at khammam along with an application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the second respondent on 9-1-98 even without giving an opportunity before condoning the delay. After long lapse of 121/2 years the third respondent filed an appeal in c. M. A. No. 17/97 before the second respondent-Agent to the Government at khammam along with an application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the second respondent on 9-1-98 even without giving an opportunity before condoning the delay. Questioning the same, the petitioner earlier filed W. P. No. 13561/98 before this Court and this" Court allowed the same on 28-12-1998 by setting aside the order passed by the second respondent in C. M. A. No. 17/97 dt. 9-1-98 with a direction to take up the matter for de novo enquiry and before passing any order on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner should be heard and he should be given an opportunity to defend the matter. After remand, the second respondent allowed the appeal filed by the third respondent and declared the alleged sale deed dt. 20-9-60 as null and void under Land Transfer Regulation no. 1/59. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 3 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that land Transfer Regulation 1/59 came into force in Telangana Area in the year 1963, the sale which took place prior to the coming into force of the said Regulation cannot be declared as null and void in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in g. Narasa Reddy vs. Collector, Adilabad. On the date when the sale took place, the third respondent is not a tribe and he belongs to non-tribal, for the first time she was declared as tribe in the year 1976. The appellate authority has not adverted to the said fact while allowing the appeal. ( 4 ) IN response to the notice before admission, the third respondent filed a counter and also petition to vacate the status quo granted on 28-4-2000. ( 5 ) THE third respondent denied the contention of the petitioner that he purchased the land from her by way of sale deed dt. 20-9-1960. ( 4 ) IN response to the notice before admission, the third respondent filed a counter and also petition to vacate the status quo granted on 28-4-2000. ( 5 ) THE third respondent denied the contention of the petitioner that he purchased the land from her by way of sale deed dt. 20-9-1960. According to her, her father late Adika Laxmaiah was the owner of the land and he died in the year 1970 and only after his death, she succeeded to the property, therefore it is un-imagonable that she executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 20-9-1960 when she was not even the owner on the said date. She further denied that she belongs to Nayaka community and by virtue of the declaration by President of India in the year 1976 for the first time her community was declared as scheduled Tribe. Even prior to 1950 under agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer act, 1917 (for short the Act 1/1917) which came into force from 14-8-1917 prohibits transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal, therefore, the alleged sale is null and void. According to her, the Special Deputy collector has withdrawn the complaint filed by her on the ground that the petitioner filed simple sale agreement dt. 20-9-1960 and land revenue receipts and that the Land Transfer Regulation No. 1/59 came into force in Telangana Area from 1-12-1963 and in view of the Full Bench judgment in Narasa Reddy s case (supra) he cannot go into its validity and it is not hit by the provisions of 3 (l) (a) of Land transfer Regulation 1/59. Agent to the government (2nd respondent) after examining the land revenue records etc. , disbelieved the agreement dt. 20-9-60 and the land revenue receipts, allowed the appeal. In spite of the remand order passed by the High Court, the petitioner has not chosen to participate in the enquiry nor produced any evidence. Apart from the same, the petitioner has not chosen to put forth any claim in the year 1984 before the settlement Officer in which she was granted settlement patta by the Settlement Officer. If at all the writ petitioner is in possession of the scheduled land, he ought to have approached the Settlement Officer at the time of granting settlement patta in her favour and ought to have agitated before the Settlement Officer. If at all the writ petitioner is in possession of the scheduled land, he ought to have approached the Settlement Officer at the time of granting settlement patta in her favour and ought to have agitated before the Settlement Officer. She also denied that she is not a tribe on the date when the alleged sale took place and pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent, she was put in possession of the property under a panchanama dt. 13-1-2000 and she is continuing to be in possession till the status quo granted by this Court and requests the court to dismiss the writ petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (1) Regulation No. 1/59 which has been extended to Khammam district from 1-12-1963 has no retrospective in operation, therefore, the sale which took place prior to coming into force of the regulation cannot be declared as null and void. (2) Once there is no prohibition under scheduled Districts Act, 1874 prohibiting sale, the second respondent is not justified in going into the validity of the sale in view of the Full Bench Judgment in narasa Reddy s case (supra) as approved by the Supreme Court in Deputy Collector vs. S. Venkata ramanaiah, therefore the second respondent committed an error in allowing the appeal. (3) It is only the Agency Divisional officer or any other prescribed officer alone is competent to pass a decree of ejectment against which an appeal lies, therefore, the order passed by the second respondent is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Counsel for the third respondent contended that the petitioner for the first time raised the plea that the respondent is not a tribe and her community was declared in the year 1976 as scheduled Tribe is not correct and when the property was mutated in the settlement records in the name of the third respondent after the death of her father, the petitioner has not raised any objection. When settlement patta was granted by the settlement Officer, the petitioner has not raised any objection. When settlement patta was granted by the settlement Officer, the petitioner has not raised any objection. He also contended that the Act 1 of 1917 was in force in the Agency tracts of the Ganjam, Vizagapatnam and godavari Districts prohibits transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal; as the third respondent is a tribal, the petitioner cannot derive any title to the property. Apart from the same, the petitioner having not chosen to file the sale deed before the appellate authority nor participated in the enquiry cannot raise all these grounds in the present writ petition and requests the Court to dismiss the writ petition. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that on the complaint made by the third respondent, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal welfare) Paloncha has declared the transaction which took place in the year 1960 was prior to enforcement of Land transfer Regulation 1/59 and is not hit by the provisions of Land Transfer regulation 1/59 and case was withdrawn. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in C. M. A. No. 17/97 which was allowed on 9-1-1998 and the same was set aside by this Court and directed the second respondent to take up the matter de novo and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner filed a detailed counter in I. A. No. 31/97 in which he admitted that the settlement patta was granted to the third respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner herein is the owner and possessor of the schedule mentioned property and he also filed an appeal against the granting of settlement patta in favour of the third respondent. In the above counter, it is not stated that the petitioner (sic. 3rd respodent) is not a Scheduled Tribe and she belongs to nayaka community and first time she was declared as tribe by amending the presidential Order, 1950. After remanding the matter to the second respondent, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to prove his possession over the scheduled land before Land Transfer Regulation no. 1/59 came into force. It is also observed by the appellate authority in spite of giving sufficient time to the petitioner he has not produced any evidence. Once the sale is hit by Land Transfer Regulation 1/59, the sale transaction is null and void under Land transfer Regulation 1/59. 1/59 came into force. It is also observed by the appellate authority in spite of giving sufficient time to the petitioner he has not produced any evidence. Once the sale is hit by Land Transfer Regulation 1/59, the sale transaction is null and void under Land transfer Regulation 1/59. It is also held that bhadrachalam and Nugur Venkatapuram taluk being part of East Godavari were declared as Scheduled tracts vide scheduled Districts Act, 1874 which prohibits transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above evidence, it has to be seen whether the sale taken place on 20-9-1960 is hit by Land Transfer regulation No. 1/59 or not. ( 10 ) PRIOR to enforcement of Land transfer Regulation 1/59, Section 4 of Act 1 of 1917 prohibits transfer of immovable property situated within the Agency Tracts by a member of a hill tribe shall be absolutely null and void unless it is made in favour of another member of a hill tribe or with the previous consent in writing of the agent or of any other prescribed officer. Prior to coming into force of Land Transfer regulation 1/59, the Scheduled Districts act, (Act 14 of 1874) was enacted barring the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts of fudicature and conferring the same on the officers appointed under the said Act. Bhadrachalam which forms part of godavari District was declared as scheduled Tract under the Act. ( 11 ) THE Agency tracts as defined by act 1/1917 reads as follows: "agency tracts" means the Scheduled districts as defined in Acts XIV and xv of 1874 and included within the districts of Ganajam, Visakahaptnam and Godavari. ( 12 ) LAND Transfer Regulation, 1959 came into force on 4-3-1959 in the Scheduled areas of East Godavari, West Godavali, visakhapatnam, Srikakulam Districts of andhra Pradesh. Section 3 (1) prohibited transfer of immovable properties situated in the agency tracts from a member of scheduled Tribe to non-tribal without previous consent in writing of the Agent or any prescribed officer. The said Regulation has been extended to the Scheduled Areas of Adilabad, Warangal, Khammam and mahabubnagar Districts from 1-12-1963. Bhadrachalam and Nugur are now included in the Khammam District earlier form part of East Godavari District. A notification which was issued in g. O. Ms. No. 2384 dt. 17-11-1959 reads as follows: notification No. I"1. The said Regulation has been extended to the Scheduled Areas of Adilabad, Warangal, Khammam and mahabubnagar Districts from 1-12-1963. Bhadrachalam and Nugur are now included in the Khammam District earlier form part of East Godavari District. A notification which was issued in g. O. Ms. No. 2384 dt. 17-11-1959 reads as follows: notification No. I"1. The Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that the Bhadrachalam revenue Division consisting of Nugur and Bhadrachalam taluks which now form part of East Godavari District, shall with effect from the afternoon of 30-11-1959 cease to be part of that district and be included in the khammam District. "2. The Acts, Regulations, Rules and other laws which extend to or are in force in the areas of the said Revenue division shall continue to extend or be in force after such transfer. "notification in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 5 read with Section 7 of the hyderabad Land Revenue Act (Hyderabad Act (VIII of 1317 F.) the governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following amendment to the notification No. 55 Revenue dt. the 25th September, 1956 the former hyderabad Government, with effect from the afternoon of 30-11-1959. Amendment in the Schedule to the said notification the entries in columns (3) and (4) against the item "16. Khammam" the following: 3. Bhadrachalam 1. Bhadrachalam. 2. Nugur 2. The Acts, Regulation, Rules and other laws which extend to or are in force in the areas of Bhadrachalm revenue Division shall continue to so extend or be in force after such transfer. " ( 13 ) IN view of the same, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that land Transfer Regulation, 1959 came into force in Telangana area on 1-12-1963 and is not applicable to the transaction that took place on 20-9-1960 cannot be accepted for the reason that Land Transfer regulation 1/59 first came into force in the scheduled areas in the districts of East godavari, West Godavari, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam w. e. f. 4-3-1959, the revenue divisions of Bhadrachalam consisting of nugur and Bhadrachalam were part of East godavari till 30-11-1959, therefore the first contention of the petitioner is not accepted and it is accordingly rejected. ( 14 ) WITH regard to the second contention of the Counsel for petitioner that there was no prohibition with regard to the transfer of agricultural land under Scheduled Districts act, 1874 and prohibition contained in Land transfer Regulation No. 1/59 is made applicable from 1-12-1963 and therefore the second respondent is not justified in declaring the sale deed dt. 20-9-1960 -as null and void under Land Transfer regulation 1/59 cannot be accepted for the reason that Act 1/1917 which prohibits transfer of agricultural land by a tribal to non-tribal in revenue divisions consisting of nuguru and Bhadrachalam taluks which were part of East Godavari District prior to notification dt. 17-11-59. Even otherwise land Transfer Regulation No. 1/59 which is made applicable to these areas from 4-3-1959 and the alleged sale according to the petitioner took place only on 20-9-1960, therefore, the second respondent has rightly gone into the validity of the sale and declared the same is -. null and void. The reliance placed on the Full Bench judgment in the case of Narasa Reddy (supra) will be applicable to the areas where the scheduled areas Land Transfer regulation 1/59 was first time made applicable to the Scheduled areas in telangana area from 1-12-1963. The Land transfer Regulation 1/59 was made applicable to the transaction that took place in the revenue divisions consisting of nuguru and Bhadrachalam taluks and rules and other laws which extend to or in force in the area are saved though it is excluded from Godavari District and included in khammam District. In view of the above, the second contention of the petitioner has no merit consideration and it is accordingly rejected. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel elaborating the third contention argued that it is only the agency Divisional Officer or any other prescribed officer alone is competent to pass an order of ejectment if there is any dispute with regard to the transaction dt. 20-9-1960 and its validity under Sec. 3 (2) (a ). Unless there is a dispute about the transaction the second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass an ejectment order as appeal lies only against an ejectment decree or order but no appeal lies against withdrawal of the proceedings. I see no force in the above contention for the reason, that the petitioner questioning the order passed in C,. Unless there is a dispute about the transaction the second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass an ejectment order as appeal lies only against an ejectment decree or order but no appeal lies against withdrawal of the proceedings. I see no force in the above contention for the reason, that the petitioner questioning the order passed in C,. M. A. earlier filed W. P. No. 13561/98 in this honourable Court and this Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order passed by the second respondent in c. M. A. No. 17/97 dt. 9-1-1998 with a direction to take up the matter de novo and pass appropriate orders on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Once a Mandamus is issued for de novo enquiry by the second respondent who had to consider and pass a final order in the matter as held by the Apex court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gulapu Sailoo. Apart from the same, under section 3 (2) (a), the Agent, the Agency divisional Officer, or any other prescribed officer may on application by person interested or, on information given in writing by public servant, or suo motu decree ejectment against any person in possession of the property contravening land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959. Rule 3 (2) of A. P. Scheduled Areas Land transfer Rules, 1969 (for short land transfer Rules, 1969 ) specifies in addition to the Agent and the Agency Divisional officer, the Deputy Collector (Tribal welfare) shall be competent to pass ejectment decree or order. Rule 8 provides an appeal against any decree or order passed under sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 by the officer referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. Once the first respondent refused to pass an ejectment order against which an appeal is filed before the second respondent and this court directed to take up the matter de novo and pass appropriate orders. ( 16 ) THE appellate authority i. e. , 2nd respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 3 (2) (a) of Land Transfer regulation 1 of 59, and Rule 3 (2) of Land transfer Rules, 1969 can pass appropriate orders that can be passed by the Special deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) R-1. ( 16 ) THE appellate authority i. e. , 2nd respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 3 (2) (a) of Land Transfer regulation 1 of 59, and Rule 3 (2) of Land transfer Rules, 1969 can pass appropriate orders that can be passed by the Special deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) R-1. It is also not disputed that appeal is continuation of the proceedings and the appellate authority tapped with all the powers of original authority in the matter. In view of the above, it is not possible to accede to the aforesaid submission and the same is accordingly rejected. ( 17 ) IT is lastly contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that it is only in the year 1976 President of India amended presidential Order, 1950 which notified the scheduled Tribe and thereby included the nayaka community as one of the Scheduled tribes for the first time. As there is no bar for sale of property by a non-tribal to a non-tribal the sale is not hit by Land Transfer regulation 1/59. In order to facilitate effective enforcement of Land Transfer regulation 1 of 1959, Section 3 (l) (b) was amended and a rule of presumption was introduced to the effect that unless contrary is proved any immovable property situated in the Agency tracts and in the possession of a person who is not a member of scheduled Tribe, shall be presumed to have been acquired by such person or his predecessor in possession through a transfer made to him by a member of scheduled Tribe. As per Section 3 (1) (b) the burden lies upon the petitioner to establish and prove that the third respondent is a non-tribal. As seen from the record, the petitioner has not raised such a plea either in his counter nor discharged his burden either before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Paloncha in Case no. 243/84 VNGR nor raised the same before the appellate authority-the second respondent. For the first time such a plea is taken by him in the writ petition. This Court in B. Sanyasi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (W. P. Nos. 464 and 4498 of 1979 dated 12-2-1980) held that it is only in the year 1950 by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) order, 1950 made under Cl. For the first time such a plea is taken by him in the writ petition. This Court in B. Sanyasi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (W. P. Nos. 464 and 4498 of 1979 dated 12-2-1980) held that it is only in the year 1950 by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) order, 1950 made under Cl. (1) of Art. 342 of the Constitution of India (as amended in 1956) it is declared that the Nayakas who reside in the Agency Tracts shall be treated as members of the Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of any acceptable evidence contra let in by the petitioner, he cannot be permitted to raise the same for the first time in the writ petition, the same is accordingly rejected. ( 18 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition. ( 19 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the status quo granted by this Court on 29-4-2000 is hereby vacated. No costs.