1. The petitioner herein claims to have purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac.13.33 guntas situated in Sy.No.83 of Tatkoor Village, Velairpadu Mandal, Khammam District from the 4th respondent under an un-registered sale deed dated.15.05.1968. It is stated that since the date of purchase she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by paying the land revenue and even mutation has taken place in the revenue records in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “ROR Act,1971” ). That apart the MRO, Velairpadu Mandal after making necessary enquiry and after receiving the required fee, regularized the transaction in favour of the petitioner and issued a sale certificate in Form-XIII (B) under Section 5-A(4) of ROR Act, 1971 read with Rule.22(5)(ii) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989.

2. While so, on a complaint made by the respondents 5 and 6 herein, alleging that the transfer of the said property in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Sec.3(1) of A.P Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short Regulation 1 of 1959), the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare by order dated.10-03-2005 ordered ejectment of the petitioner and directed restoration of the said property to the complainants. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal being C.M.A. No.6 of 2005 before the 1st respondent herein, the same was dismissed by order dated.18-08-2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated.18.08.2005 in C.M.A.No.6 of 2005 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated.10-03-2005 and to quash both the orders being arbitrary and illegal.

3. I have heard Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and perused the material on record. Despite notice, the respondents 4 to 6 did not choose to appear.

4. It is not in dispute that the land in question is a notified scheduled area governed by the provisions of the Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The fact that the writ petitioner as well as her vendor (4th respondent herein) are non-tribals is also not in dispute.

5. Section 3 of Regulation 1 of 1959 as substituted by Regulation 1 of 1970 declares that any transfer of immovable property situated in the agency tracts by a person whether or not such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe shall be absolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in favour of person, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe. According to Section 3(1)(b) unless the contrary is proved, a presumption shall be drawn that any immovable property situated in the agency tracts and in the possession of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe has been acquired by him or his predecessor in possession through a transfer made by a member of a Scheduled Tribe.

6. In the case on hand, the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare after holding the enquiry as provided under Regulation 1 of 1959 and the Rules made there under, concluded that the transfer of the property in question in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 3(1) of Regulation 1 of 1959. On the basis of a report received from the MRO, Velairpadu dated 04-02-2005 it was also held by the Special Deputy Collector that the name of the writ petitioner was entered as possessor in the revenue records only from the year 1987-88. While recording a further finding that the petitioner had purchased the land in question during the year 1988 after enforcement of Regulation 1 of 1970, it was also held by the Special Deputy Collector that the ROR pass books and title deed issued to the petitioner were concocted and that the ROR(1) b) Register was tampered and the name of the writ petitio