V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel "for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Revenue. ( 2 ) THE petitioner belongs to Harijan community and wife of one mr. K. Lazarus, who died in December 1988. A house-site was assigned to the husband of the petitioner on 3-8-1978 by the then Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam and the extent of the house-site was 3 cents bearing plot No. 139 at Bhadrachalam. Admittedly, the assigned land is situated in the scheduled area. As the site was assigned in favour of the husband of the petitioner, who is not a Scheduled Tribe, by the then tahsildar vide R. C. No. B-4/5160/77 dated 3-8-1978 contrary to Section 3 of the A. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the regulation ), the assignment was cancelled by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam vide his proceedings No. C/1089/82 dated 18-10-1982. After the cancellation of the house-site patta, a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short the Act ) has been issued by the then tahsildar, against which, the husband of the petitioner approached the Collector, who has initially granted stay, but subsequently vacated the same. The husband of the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government, and the government also initially granted stay, but subsequently, vide its Memo No. 3005/c2/ 83-2 dated 22-2-1985, vacated the stay granted on 21-9-1983. ( 3 ) QUESTIONING the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioner as per the provisions of Sections 7 and 6 of the Act, the petitioner filed this writ petition contending that the house-site assigned in favour of the husband of the petitioner is no more a vacant land and a house is constructed therein, and therefore, a house cannot be evicted under the Act and the Act has no application over the scheduled areas, and therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal and unsustainable. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has not questioned the cancellation of assignment of house-site granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner and the house-site patta has been cancelled by the Sub-Collector, bhadrachalam and the said cancellation order dated 18-10-1982 has become final. ( 5 ) NOW the questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition, viz. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has not questioned the cancellation of assignment of house-site granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner and the house-site patta has been cancelled by the Sub-Collector, bhadrachalam and the said cancellation order dated 18-10-1982 has become final. ( 5 ) NOW the questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition, viz. , (1) Whether the house, if any constructed by the husband of the petitioner or by the petitioner on the said land assigned in their favour can be evicted under the Act pursuant to the cancellation of the house-site patta? and (2) Whether the Act is applicable over the scheduled areas? ( 6 ) THE Regulation came into force in 1959 and it was made applicable to the telangana Area with effect from 1-12-1963. As per Section 3 of the Regulation, there cannot be any transfer of the immovable property in the agency tracts by any person or by the Government in favour of the non-tribal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a non-tribal. The assignment of the house- site also is a transfer within the meaning of section 2 (g) of the Regulation. As per section 2 (g) of the Regulation, there cannot be any transfer relating to the immovable property in scheduled area by way of mortgage, lease, sale, gift, exchange or in any other manner or by way of any other dealing. Therefore, the assignment of patta in favour of the husband of the petitioner was held illegal and contrary to Section 3 of the Regulation, as admittedly, the assignment was made subsequent to the regulation came into force. In P. Pratap reddy vs. D. Pullam Raju, a Division Bench of this Court held that any immovable property, whether the land or the house, cannot be transferred to a non-tribal in the scheduled areas. When the assignment of the land, i. e. house-site, has been cancelled as it was contrary to Section 3 of the regulation, the contention of the petitioner is that even if the said assignment is cancelled, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the house under the Act. When the patta itself has been cancelled, the petitioner is an encroacher. Whether any house is constructed or not, it will not give any right to the petitioner to continue in illegal possession of the same. When the patta itself has been cancelled, the petitioner is an encroacher. Whether any house is constructed or not, it will not give any right to the petitioner to continue in illegal possession of the same. The petitioner is continuing without any authority of law, and therefore, he is an encroacher within the meaning of the Act. It is further stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a landless poor, and therefore, the assignment cannot be cancelled under the Act. There cannot be any assignment of the land or immoveable property in respect of the scheduled area in favour of a non-tribal. Whether the petitioner is a landless poor or otherwise, there cannot be any transfer of the immovable property of the scheduled area in favour of a non-tribal, and therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 7 ) WITH regard to the 2nd contention that admittedly, the provisions of the Act extend to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh including the scheduled areas. It is open for the Governor to issue a notification to exclude the provisions of certain Acts operating over the scheduled areas. As there is no notification issued under the schedule V of the Constitution of India, the act is also applicable over the scheduled areas. Having regard to the object and scheme of the Regulation, which is to give effect to the principles contained in the 5th schedule of the Constitution of India and is a social enactment made in favour of the scheduled Tribes, and as admittedly, the assignment of land was made within tht scheduled area contrary to the Regulation, and therefore, it was cancelled and tht cancellation of the house-site patta has become final, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the technical contentions that the petitioner cannot be evicted by exercise of the provisions of the act, is without any force of law, as the petitioner is an encroacher. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitiona further submits that as per the orders of the government in G. O. Ms. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitiona further submits that as per the orders of the government in G. O. Ms. No. 634, employment and Social Welfare Department, dated 19-8-1974, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is also applicable to the scheduled areas; and the land in the scheduled areas can be acquired for the purpose of allotting house-sites in favour of the Scheduled castes; and as the acquisition of the land in the scheduled areas for allotting the same in favour of the Scheduled Castes is also a public purpose, it cannot be said that the assignment of the house-site in favour of the petitioner s husband is contrary to the regulation. ( 9 ) AS per the Regulation, there cannot be any settlement of land in the scheduled areas in favour of the Scheduled Castes, and the land cannot be transferred in any manner in favour of non-tribals. There is a total prohibition of the transfer of the land in scheduled areas in favour of non-tribals. May be, under the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of development of the scheduled areas, i. e. for laying the roads, constructing tanks, etc. , the land can be acquired and the scheduled areas can be developed; but the land cannot be acquired for the purpose of providing house-sites to the Scheduled Castes. The Government also cannot push the Scheduled Caste community over the scheduled areas de hors the Regulation. I, therefore, cannot accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has no right to continue in the immovable property contrary to the Regulation, and therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the constitution of India to grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.