( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are in relation to an extent of Ac. 2. 03 cents of land in survey no. l07/e of Pokalagudem village, chandragonda mandal of Khammam district. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in w. P. No. 20481 of 1996. ( 3 ) THE petitioner purchased the said land from the father of 5th respondent in the year 1969 under an agreement of sale. On a complaint made by the father of the 5th respondent, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), the 3rd respondent herein, initiated the proceedings under A. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by regulation 1 of 1970 (for short regulation ). It was taken up as case No. l038/kgm/79 against the petitioner. It was alleged that the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner is in violation of the said Regulation. Through order dated 10-3-1986, the 3rd respondent directed the eviction of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed C. M. A. No. 14 of 1992 before the Agent to Government, the 2nd respondent. The appeal was allowed holding that the father of the 5th respondent was not a tribal when the proceedings were initiated and that the transaction took place much before the Regulation came into force. ( 5 ) THE 5th respondent filed revision before the government, the first respondent herein. Through orders in G. O. Rt. No. 1117 dated 13-11-1995, the first respondent dismissed the revision, but set aside the order in C. M. A. and directed resumption of the land to the government. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 310 of 1996 complaining that she was not put on notice. The said writ petition was allowed, the order in G. O. Rt. No. 1117 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. On such remand, the first respondent passed an order in G. O. Ms. No. 104, dated 13-9-1996 reiterating the earlier order in G. O. Rt. No. 1117, dated 13-11-1995. W. P. No. 20481 of 1996 is filed against it. ( 6 ) THE petitioner sold the said land in favour of one Mr. Lavudya Surya while w. P. No. 20481 of 1996 was pending. No. 104, dated 13-9-1996 reiterating the earlier order in G. O. Rt. No. 1117, dated 13-11-1995. W. P. No. 20481 of 1996 is filed against it. ( 6 ) THE petitioner sold the said land in favour of one Mr. Lavudya Surya while w. P. No. 20481 of 1996 was pending. Surya in turn filed W. P. No. 26172 of 1999 complaining that his possession over the land is sought to be interfered with by the respondents. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Tribal welfare have made extensive submissions in support of their respective contentions. ( 8 ) FROM the narration of the facts in the preceding paragraph, it is evident that the petitioner purchased the land under an agreement of sale, much before the Regulation came into force. The fifth respondent is a lambada by caste. That caste was declared as scheduled Tribe, only with effect from 1977. The third respondent did not record any finding that the sale has taken place after the Regulation came into force. He proceeded just on certain assumptions and mostly on the ground that the petitioner did not respond properly to the notice issued by him. ( 9 ) THE second respondent, who heard the c. M. A. filed by the petitioner, discussed the matter extensively and held that the so called sale was between two non-tribals as on the relevant date and that the sale was not hit by the Regulation at all. The first respondent, however, adopted a curious course of action. On the one hand the revision preferred by the 5th respondent was dismissed and on the other hand, the order, which was subject matter of the revision, was set aside and ultimately the land was directed to be resumed to the government. There was a clear and blatant illegality on the face of it. ( 10 ) AFTER the matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration, it proceeded as though the only question before it was whether or not G. O. Rt. 1117 dated 13-11-1995 needs any modification at all. Such an approach is untenable. ( 11 ) WHILE passing the order in g. O. Rt. 1117, as well as the subsequent g. O. Ms. 1117 dated 13-11-1995 needs any modification at all. Such an approach is untenable. ( 11 ) WHILE passing the order in g. O. Rt. 1117, as well as the subsequent g. O. Ms. No. 104, the first respondent had referred to several facts which were not adverted to, either by the third respondent or by the second respondent. The scope of interference in a revision is very limited and the authority has to confine himself to the record and the proceedings that constitute the subject matter of the revision. If the authority exercising the powers of revision feels that any fresh material ought to have been taken into account, the only course open to it would be, to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Going beyond the record of the original proceedings, at the stage of revision, vitiates the very exercise of the jurisdiction. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, W. P. No. 20481 of 1996 is allowed and the order in g. O. Ms. No. 104, dated 13-9-1996, is set aside. ( 13 ) SO far as, W. P. No. 26172 of 1999 is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner can be said to be either premature or without any basis. In case his possession in sought to be interfered with, he has to workout his remedies by filing a suit or by initiating proceedings before Special Deputy Collector, therefore, W. P. No. 26172 of 1999 is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to have recourse to such steps.