ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the orders passed by respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 22.09.2007 confirming the orders passed by respondent No.2 in C.M.A.No.9 of 1998 dated 16.07.2001 and orders of respondent No.3 in LTR Case No.1130 of 1995/PAL, dated 22.11.1997 as illegal, contrary to the records, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Sri K. Jagadeeshwar, learned counsel appearing for Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Notice in respect of respondent No.6 is returned unserved.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land to an extent of Acs.4.20guntas in Survey No.81/80 situated at Payakari, Yanambile(v), Paloncha(M), Khammam District presently, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Petitioner purchased the property through agreement of sale dated 10.10.1968 from one G. Janakaiah thereafter he executed a registered sale deed vide No.1275/76 on 11.06.1976. He further submits that the petitioner’s vendor had purchased the said property through registered sale deed dated 19.08.1968 from one Sri. Ganduri Achaiah, S/o Papaiah who is none other the father of respondent No.6 and the transaction is between non-tribals and no tribal interest is involved. He further submits that basing on the complaint of respondent No.6, respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under the Telangana State Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 1959 amended Regulation 1 of 1970 and its Rules 1969(herein after called as ‘Regulations’ for brevity) and passed ejectment order on 22.11.1997, though the provisions of the Regulations are not applicable to the subject land. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed appeal CMA No.9 of 1998 and respondent No.2 also without properly considering the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of respondent No.3 by its order dated 16.07.2001. Aggrieved by the above said orders the petitioner filed Revision invoking the provisions of Section 6 of Regulations before respondent No.1. The Revisional authority also without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner simply confirmed the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 22.09.2007.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner’s vendor purchased the property from the original assignee thereafter the petitioner purchased the property through agreement of sale dated 10.10.1968 and thereafter obtained the registered sale deed dated 11.06.1976. Respondent No.3 is not having any authority or jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under Regulations, as the subject land is assigned land and the revenue authorities are alone entitled to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977(Act 9 of 1977)(herein after called as Act) for cancellation of the assignment patta. He further contended that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and also land less poor person and he is entitled to claim the benefits as envisaged under Section 3(5) of the Act, and the petitioner raised specific ground about applications of Regulations. The primary authority, appellate authority or revisional authority have not considered the same and passed ejectment orders.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that subject property situated in the scheduled area and respondent No.3 has rightly initiated the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under the Regulations, as the petitioner purchased the property through registered sale deed only on 11.06.1976 and the same is clear contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Regulations. Respondent No.3 after considering the contentions of the respective parties and after