( 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. , (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 petit