JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner has asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the order made by the competent authority u/s 3 of Regulation 2 of 1956 as upheld in appeal by the opposite party No. 2. 2. Opposite party No. 4 made on application u/s 3(1) of the Regulation asking for recovery of possession of the property covered by plot numbers - 228 and 229 of khata No. 8 having a total area of A. 2.29 acres by contending that the land belonged to him and the Petitioner not a member of the Scheduled Tribes was in mega possession of such property. The Petitioner took the stand that he had been in possession of this property for about 45 years having purchased the same under a decree of the Agency Subordinate Judge. 3. The competent authority came to find that there was no transfer as such, but the Petitioner was in unauthorised possession. Accordingly he made on order evicting the Petitioner from the property and imposed penalty of Rs. 200/- as provided under the Regulation. 4. The appellate authority did notice the fact that opposite party No. 4?s witness admitted that for more than twenty years prior to his date of examination in Court, the Petitioner was in possession of the property having merged the same with his own lands and yet he sustained the order of the competent authority. 5. Mr. Dora for the Petitioner raises two contentions: (i) There being no transfer, the provisions of the Regulation do not at all get attracted and therefore, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings;& (ii) In view of the admitted position that the Petitioner?s possession was for more than twenty years, i.e. it began prior to the enforcement of the Regulation, the authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding. 6. Regulation of 1956 admittedly refers to "illegal transfer of immovable property". The phrase has been defined u/s 2(5) of the Regulation and Section 3(1) makes the provision very clear. On the finding that there has been no transfer in favour of the Petitioner and it is a case of his trespass over the property, the provisions of the Regulation could not have been set in motion on application of O.P. No. 4. 7. We also find force in the second contention of Mr. On the finding that there has been no transfer in favour of the Petitioner and it is a case of his trespass over the property, the provisions of the Regulation could not have been set in motion on application of O.P. No. 4. 7. We also find force in the second contention of Mr. Dora that possession was admitted to be from 1952 or 1953 and as the witness for the opposite party No. 4 stated, the Petitioner had amalgamated the land along with his own which would go to show that he was possessing the same as part of his own property. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion to take cognisance of the application of O.P. No. 4. 8. Both the contentions of Mr. Dora must prevail. We would accordingly allow this application, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders of opposite parties - 3 and 2 respectively. As the contesting opposite party has not appeared, we direct parties to bear their own costs before us. P.K. Mohanti, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed