ORDER :- An extent of Acs.10.96 cents of land in RS No.1487 of present Buttaigudem Village and MandaI, West Godavari District, which is in the Scheduled Area, was held by a Zamindar of the area and he granted patta in respect of that land in favour of one Koonam Pullaiah. That land was purchased by Alapati Ramanna from the wife and son of Koonam Pullaiah through a registered sale deed, dated 3.7.1950. Bikkina Pullaiah purchased the land from Alapati Ramanna, through sale deed, dated 19.12.1957. Dometti Suranna and his wife Subbayamma purchased that very property through sale deed, dated 11.9.1959. The petitioners herein are the daughters of Suranna and Subbayamma. After the death of their father, the Settlement Officer has granted patta in respect of the entire land in favour of the mother of the petitioners vide proceedings, dated 12.5.1995. 2. The petitioners submit that the sale in favour of their parents took place much before the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short 'the Regulation') came into force, and that on several occasions, proceedings initiated under that regulation against their mother, were dropped. . 3. The petitioners state that their mother executed a Will dated 12.3.2008, bequeathing the land, referred to above, in equal shares to them, and that she died, on 19.4.2008. They were also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds, in respect of the extents of land bequeathed to them. The 3 respondent submitted a representation, dated 8.6.2011, before the 1st respondent, stating that the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioners has taken contrary to the provisions of law. Based upon that the 1st respondent issued a notice, dated 1.10.2011, requiring the petitioners to appear before him with the entire record. The petitioners challenge the very initiation of proceedings against them. 4. They contend that on more occasions than one the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under the regulation, in respect of the land and has dropped the same on finding that no transfer in contravention of the regulation has taken place. They submit that devolution of land through testamentary succession from their mother cannot be treated as transfer, as defined under Section 2(g) of the Regulation. 5. The 3rd respondent filed a counter- affidavit. They submit that devolution of land through testamentary succession from their mother cannot be treated as transfer, as defined under Section 2(g) of the Regulation. 5. The 3rd respondent filed a counter- affidavit. According to her, accrual of the property in favour of the petitioners is contrary to the regulation and that the definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(g) of the Regulation is wide enough to cover such devolution also. 6. Sri C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners got title to the land on the basis of a Will executed by their mother and the testamentary successions are specifically excluded from the definition of transfer under Section 2(g) of the Regulation. He contends that the 3rd respondent has no right or claim over the land and that there was no basis for the 1st respondent in initiating the proceedings. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri Shiva Bhami Reddy, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, submit that though the title of the mother of the petitioners in respect of the land was upheld on earlier occasions, the transfer that took place, between the petitioners and their mother, is hit by the provisions of the regulation. 8. The manner in which the parents and in particular the mother of the petitioners acquired title to the land, has already been mentioned. On two earlier occasions, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings against the mother and other family members of the petitioners alleging that the transfer in their favour was hit by Section 3 of the Regulation. The regulation, as originally framed, prohibits transfer of lands in the scheduled areas, from a tribal to non-tribal. No prohibition, as such, existed against the transfers between two non-tribals. However, through amendment, the transfer of land between two non-tribals is also prohibited. As the law stands now, any transfer of immovable property in the scheduled area can take place, only in favour of a non-tribal. 9. On verification of the records in the proceedings initiated against the mother of the petitioners, it emerged that the transfer of land in her favour took place, much before the regulation came into force. On that basis, the proceedings were dropped. 10. 9. On verification of the records in the proceedings initiated against the mother of the petitioners, it emerged that the transfer of land in her favour took place, much before the regulation came into force. On that basis, the proceedings were dropped. 10. Whatever may have been the legality of the title held by the mother of the petitioners, any transfer made by her in favour of non-tribals, even if such non-tribals are her own family members, would have been contrary to Section 3 of the Regulation. It needs to be noted that the definition of transfer adopted under the regulation is far wider, when compared to the definition of transfers under the Transfer of Property Act. While under that Act, it is only transactions of sale, mortgage, lease, gift, and exchange, effected through the registered documents that are to be treated as transfers, Section 2(g) of the Regulation defines the word 'transfer' to include not only the transactions of the nature referred to above, but also any contracts or agreements preceding them. The definition reads: "Transfer' means mortgage with or without possession, lease, sale, gift, exchange or any other dealing with immovable property, not being a testamentary disposition and includes a charge on such property or a contract relating to such property in respect of such mortgage, lease, sale, gift, exchange or other dealing." 11. From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that notwithstanding the enlargement of the scope of transfer of immovable properties, the definition has clearly excluded from its purview, the testamentary dispositions. Once the Legislature felt it appropriate to keep the testamentary dispositions outside the purview of the definition of transfer under the- regulation, it is not at all open to any authority to invoke its jurisdiction, vis-a-vis any accrual of property in a scheduled area to a citizen under a Will. 12. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the basis for accrual of title to the petitioners is the Will executed by their mother. It is clearly a testamentary disposition that gave rise to the rights of ownership to the petitioners. Such a disposition is outside the scope of Section 2(g) and thereby, Section 3 of the Regulation. 13. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is restrained from initiating any steps against the petitioners under the regulation in relation to the land of Acs. Such a disposition is outside the scope of Section 2(g) and thereby, Section 3 of the Regulation. 13. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is restrained from initiating any steps against the petitioners under the regulation in relation to the land of Acs. l0.96 cents of land in RS No.1487 of Buttaigudem Village and Mandai, West Godavari District. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.