ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to G.O.Ms. No.19 Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department, dated 27-04-2017, by which the 1 st respondent dismissed the Revision confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 22-09-2007 in CMA No.193 of 2005 and the order of the 3rd respondent dated 26-05-2005 in LTR Case No.237/2001/ENK, which pertain to eviction of petitioner from the land in Survey No.212, Buradaraghavapuram Village, Enkur Mandal, Khammam District, admeasuring Acs.8-05 guntas. 2. Petitioner contends that said land was purchased by her late husband, Sri Laxminarayana, under a registered sada sale deed dated 20-08-1966 from the unofficial respondent; transaction involved non-tribals only and that no tribal interest was affected by the sale. It is stated, initiation of eviction proceedings under Regulation 1/59 read with 1/70 by the 3rd respondent was without jurisdiction and illegal as the eviction order dated 26-05-2005 was passed ex facie arbitrarily without affording an opportunity of being heard to her husband or any other party concerned. Petitioner further alleges that the Special Deputy Tahasildar (TW), Bhadrachalam, report dated 19-07-2001 was never supplied to the parties concerned and that eviction order did not specify reasons for such eviction. 2.1. Petitioner emphasizes that transaction occurred on 20-08-1966 and initiation of proceedings suo motu after such a long lapse of time lacks any legal sanction. After her husband’s death, she was unaware of the proceedings and subsequently, filed an Appeal before the 2nd respondent in CMA No.193 of 2005, which was dismissed on 22-09-2007. Revision filed before the 1 st respondent was also rejected by the impugned G.O. She contends that both the authorities failed to consider that no opportunity was given to her husband; transaction was solely between non-tribals, and that no claim or objection was raised by the unofficial respondent regarding sale transaction. It is asserted that sale deed remains valid in the absence of any denial by the vendor and that at no point was she directed to produce the original sale agreement, having submitted a photocopy while retaining the original. 2.2. Petitioner challenges the contention of the 1st respondent regarding non-production of pahanies, stating that all the revenue records, including pahutibai receipt books and cist receipts, consistently show the name of her husband, establishing her possession over the land. 2.2. Petitioner challenges the contention of the 1st respondent regarding non-production of pahanies, stating that all the revenue records, including pahutibai receipt books and cist receipts, consistently show the name of her husband, establishing her possession over the land. She reiterates that no tribal interest exists in the transaction, thus initiation of proceedings under the Regulations is unjustifiable and without jurisdiction. 2.3. According to petitioner, the 4 th respondent is attempting to evict her from the subject land, which would cause significant hardship, as she does not possess any other land for livelihood and her family depends entirely on agriculture. She disputes any assertion that she is claiming Acs.8-05 guntas instead of Acs.7-00, noting that boundaries and possession are the correct criteria for determining rights of a purchaser. 2.4. Petitioner states that the core issue is the validity of her husband’s purchase, which, being between non-tribals and predating the enactment of Regulation 1/59 read with 1/70, renders the proceedings without jurisdiction. Respondent authorities have been visiting the spot over the past week attempting to dispossess her. She emphasizes that validity of sale agreement cannot be adjudicated by Respondents 1 to 3, as such matters fall within the jurisdiction of civil Courts. She contends that government authorities are not competent to decide matters of family settlement and recording merits of the Will or family settlement as part of the impugned orders constitutes an action without jurisdiction. 3. Though number of adjournments were granted, official respondents have not come up with counter. 4. Heard Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for official respondents. 5. Upon careful examination of the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties, it is evident that transfer of immovable property belonging to non-tribal was made to non- tribal in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 3 as laid down in 1959 Regulations read with Regulation 1 of 1970 after commencing the said Regulation and it is null and void. Hence, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 2(a) of Section 3, the special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare ordered ejectment of whomsoever in possession of the property and directed that immovable property be taken into government custody under the cover of panchnama and assign the same to eligible tribals as per rule in force vide order dated 26.05.2005. 6. Hence, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 2(a) of Section 3, the special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare ordered ejectment of whomsoever in possession of the property and directed that immovable property be taken into government custody under the cover of panchnama and assign the same to eligible tribals as per rule in force vide order dated 26.05.2005. 6. The main plea of petitioner in the Revision is that her husband purchased the subject land through a sada sale deed on 20.03.1966 and that he has been in continuous possession from the said date, hence transfer is not hit by Act 1 of 1959. As seen from the copy of the sale deed stated to be executed by Chigurupati Sitaramaiah, it is evident that sale agreement was executed in favour of Sri Prathapaneni Laminarayana, S/o Prathapananei Ramaiah to an extent of Acs.6.00 in Survey No. 212 on 20-08.1966; the said agreement is not sale deed and it was written on plain paper; the father’s name of vendor is kept blank and location of the land is also not recorded, hence, it is clear that sale agreement is a fake document. The Revision petitioner is not able to produce original sale agreement and even she is unable to produce pahanis for continuous period from 1966 onwards either in her name or in the name of her husband. Further, as verified from the file relating to CMA No. 193 of 2005, it is evident that Prathapaneni Ramaiah (father-in-law of petitioner) had executed a well deed on 06.10.1968 on plain paper and distributed land to his three sons; as seen from the sale agreement dated 20.08.1966, P. Lakshminarayana purchased only Acs.6.00 of land and vendor’s father name is not recorded, whereas the sale deed indicates that he inherited Acs.7.00 from his father, but in the Appeal, the claim is for Acs.8.05 guntas. The government therefore opined that all these issues are contradicting with other. 7. From this, it is clear that respondent authorities acted in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 read with 1/70. Regulation 1/59 provides that transfer of immovable property within scheduled areas, where tribal interest is involved, requires prior approval of the competent authority to ensure protection of tribal land rights. 7. From this, it is clear that respondent authorities acted in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 read with 1/70. Regulation 1/59 provides that transfer of immovable property within scheduled areas, where tribal interest is involved, requires prior approval of the competent authority to ensure protection of tribal land rights. Although petitioner contends that sale transaction involved only non-tribals, the records indicate that the authorities were required to ascertain compliance with the regulatory provisions at the time of initiating eviction proceedings. The action of the 3 rd respondent in LTR Case No.237/2001/ENK and subsequent confirmation by the 2nd respondent in CMA No.193 of 2005 and the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No.19, is based on proper exercise of jurisdiction to protect the statutory framework of land transfers in scheduled areas. 8. Petitioner’s contention is that she was not heard during the proceedings, however, the records reflect that adequate statutory procedures were observed and any lapse, if at all, does not vitiate the jurisdictional competence of the authorities to take cognizance of the transfer. The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the findings of fact made by the statutory authorities under the Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation. Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that any statutory provision confers a right to ignore the regulatory mechanism in place, or that the eviction orders are arbitrary, illegal, or violative of natural justice in a manner warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is further observed that petitioner relies on the sada sale deed dated 20-08-1966 and contends that transaction is valid. However, the regulatory framework mandates scrutiny of such transfers irrespective of the date of execution, to ensure protection of tribal land rights. Petitioner’s argument that no objection was raised by the unofficial respondent does not absolve compliance with statutory requirements. Petitioner’s reliance on civil adjudication for validation of the sale deed is not maintainable in the context of the statutory regulation empowering the authorities to examine land transfer in scheduled areas. 10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no material on record to substantiate that petitioner’s eviction was carried out in violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable and does not merit interference by this Court. 11. 10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no material on record to substantiate that petitioner’s eviction was carried out in violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable and does not merit interference by this Court. 11. The writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.