THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos. 1261 and 1320 OF 2008 Dated 8th July, 2010 Between: …petitioner And …respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.1261 and 1320 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P.S.Murthy learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Though served none appears for the respondents herein. Since both the matters are connected, they are being disposed of together. In these revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the proceedings which are assailed are purportedly in pursuance of the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959. The main allegation made against and on which both the authorities found fault is that of violation of Section 3 (1) of the above said regulation. Curiously, the facts as narrated and as can be seen from the record are that, the notice seems to have been issued in the year 2004 and the report which is alleged to be relied on is dated 27-4-2004 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, and whereas the allegations pertains to a transaction, which is much later to a gift alleged to have been executed on 6-4-2005. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners are the pattedars and owners in their own right. It is the case of the petitioners that the contesting respondents are only farm servants and therefore on the face of it, when the transaction which is complained against is on 6-4-2005 how could there be an enquiry or notice or much less report earlier to the said date. Admittedly, neither the notices issued on 27-10-2004 nor the report as mentioned above which is sought to be placed reliance by the parties taking into account on the aforesaid regulation to refer to any such transaction viz., a gift deed. Therefore, apparently there are no proceedings much less any complaint in pursuance of the alleged gift. Further, it is not the case of any transaction between a tribal and non-tribal. The petitioners are the pattedars and owners. Therefore, the very provisions have no application nor can it be said any violation as such. Even otherwise, having regard to the alleged transaction being much later to the gift deed alleged to have been executed, there could not have been any such action on the part of the authorities purportedly by invoking the aforesaid provisions complaining against any violation. In fact, as on the date of the initiation there is no violation. In the circumstances, the revisions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 22-12-2007 in Appeal Case Nos.A4/LTR/05/2007 and A4/LTR/06/2007 on the file of Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Adilabad, Utnoor confirming the orders dated 27-11-2006 in Case Nos.TWA2/299/2005 and TWA2/297/2005 of the Special Deputy Collector (TV), Utnoor, respectively are set aside. No costs. ________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) Date: 8th July, 2010 grk