The Presidential Order under Art. 342 of the Constitution only specifies tribes or tribal communities, or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities, as scheduled tribes. It does not purport to convert non-tribals into tribals.

( 1 ) THE short but important question in this Writ Appeal is, whether the 1st respondent, Smt. Dasari Subbayamma, belonging to Gowda caste (a backward class notified by the Government of Andhra Pradesh) becomes a member of a scheduled tribe "goudu" (notified as a Scheduled Tribe under Art. 342 of the Constitution) by virtue of residing in an agency tract. If she is a member of scheduled tribe as held by the learned single Judge, this appeal by the Government must be dismissed, if she is not, it must succeed. The matter arises under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959. The facts are clearly and elaborately stated in the order of the learned single Judge, and we shall state them only in so far as they are relevant for the question at issue.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent (writ petitioner) is a resident of L. N. D. Peta village in Polavaram Taluk, in West Godavari District. The village is situated in an Agency Tract. She purchased a land from a member of the scheduled tribe and she is trying to save the said purchase on the ground that she too is a member of scheduled tribe, "goudu". (if she is not a member of a scheduled tribe, it is not in dispute, the sale in her favour is illegal and she has to be evicted therefrom ). In proof of her assertion she produced a certificate dated 20-7-1979 issued by the Tahsildar, Polavaram. It reads:-"this is to certify that Dasari Subbyamma wife of Rama Rao, is a native of L. N. D. Peta Village. Polavaram Taluk, West-Godavari District. She belongs to Kalali (Gowda) caste which is included in the list of Backward Classes. Sd/ -. Tahsildar, polavaram 20/7/79. "the learned single Judge has upheld the 1st respondent s contention that though she belongs to a backward class called gowda (Kalalee), she must be deemed to have become a member of a scheduled tribe goudu inasmuch as she resides within an agency tract. It would be appropriate to refer to the approach and reasoning of the learned single Judge. He first referred to the certificate produced by the 1st respondent, and then posed the question : "it remains now to be seen whether she belongs to a scheduled tribe. " he answered it in the following words :-"in the Regulation No. 1 of 1959 scheduled Tribe is defined as to mean any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or resident in the Agency Tracts and specified as such by a public notification by the President under clause (i) of Art. 342 of the Constitution. The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order was promulgated by the President in the year 1950. In the Schedule we find certain communities as having been declared Scheduled Tribes. In 1956 there was a modification of the Order and category No. 4 reads as under :- "4. In the Agency Tracts : 1. Goudu (Goud) nayaks 3, Valmiki". The petitioner claims that she belongs to goudu community. The learned Government Pleader contends that her caste is described in the sale deed as kalalee . In the list of backward classes mentioned in G. O. Ms. No. 1793 dated 23rd September, 1970, we find in Group-B Gouda (Gamalla-Kalalee) as belonging to backward classes. This, coupled with the certificate of the Tahsildar, makes it clear that kalalee" also belongs to gouda community. Persons belonging to gouda residing in agency tracts by virtue of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, as amended in 1976 have become members of a scheduled tribe. From the above discussion it is clear that the petitioner belongs to gowda community and resides in an agency tract, viz; Lakshminarayanadevipet and therefore she is a member of a scheduled tribe. Consequently, the transfer made by the 4th respondent, who is a tribal, is in favour of a tribal and not in favour of a non-tribal and therefore, it is not null and void. "the correctness of this reasoning is called in question in this writ appeal preferred by the Government.

( 3 ) ART. 342 of