RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the authorities below concurrently found that the third respondent was a tribal, and was not only entitled to but was also in possession of 16 acres, 9 cents of land situate at Cherla village, a scheduled area within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas land transfer Regulation (No: 1 of 1959 ). The third respondent instituted the case aginst one Maganti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana seeking restoration of possession of the landi. The same was ordered by the first authority holding that, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 3 (1) (b) of the regulation read with the definition of transfer contained in Section 2 (g) of the Regulation she would be entitled to restoration of possession as, by reason of the act of dispossession of the third respondent by Maganti Veera venkata Satyanarayana there was a dealing with the immovable property of the third respondent. The appellate authority, however, held that there was an oral lease of the property in favour of Maganti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana by the third respondent and that the third respondent was, therefore, entitled to restoration of possession.

( 2 ) SRI MRK Choudary, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the third respondent never pleaded before the first authority that there was any lease of her property in favour of Maganti veera Venkata Satyanarayana, and that the appellate authority was in error in making out a new case for the third respondent.

( 3 ) I do not have the advantage of perusal of the petition of the third respondent as the same is not placed before me. Be that as it may, nothing prevented the appellate authority form eliciting the truth of the transaction eventhough it was not specifically pleaded by the third- respondent. In any event the expression dealing with immoveable proberty occurring in Section 2 (g) of the Regulation embraces within its fold, acts of forcible dispossession and encroachment. I must also observe that the writ petitioners invited the impugned orders though the third respondent never sought any relief against them but only sought relief against Maganti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana.

( 4 ) I am also not impressed by the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the third respondent should have institiuted a suit for partition of the property held by her jointly with the deceased-first petitioner and the second petitioner. No such finding was recorded by both the authorities presumably for want of adequate material. What is more, as already stated, the third respondent sought relief not against the writ petitioners but only against Maganti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not, therefore, arise for consideration.

( 5 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150/ -.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document