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 learn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document