Vendor by Mr. Bhokta, learned counsel for O.P.3(a), who also fairly submitted that the Petitioner is also in possession of the disputed property since its transfer by the Vendor. Taking into account the grounds stated herein, this Court finds, the sole ground directing restoration of the disputed land remaining involves a sale transaction within one year of purchase. Looking to the provision protecting the interest of the Tribal People, this Court finds, there is no restriction in the manner of sale. In the circumstance, this Court finds, the reason assigned in the direction for restoration of the disputed land is improper. Otherwise also the Petitioner is in enjoyment of an interim protection by way of permission to approach this court in the event step for restoration of the land is taken. Undisputedly, the Petitioner is in possession of the disputed land.