JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is an application for a writ of certiorari directed against the appellate order of the Additional District Magistrate of Korapupt upholding an order of ejectment passed under Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Regulation") by the competent authority. 2. Opposite party No. 1 made an application u/s 3 of the Regulation on the allegation that lands measuring 2, 42 acres in plot numbers 105 and 106 in village Under had been mortgaged by him and another in favour of opposite party No. 2 Madhab Dandasena for a sum of Rs. 900/- without the requisite permission envisaged under the Regulation. Therefore a prayer was made for restoration of possession thereof. Opposite party No. 2 took the stand that he was not in possession of any land belonging to opposite party No. 1 and that the land was in possession of Petitioner before us. Accordingly Petitioner was added as a party to the proceeding. He took the stand that he had purchased the property by a registered sale deed and produced the said document before the competent authority. Some witnesses were examined on both sides. The competent authority came to hold that the alienation by mortgage was a benami one and though opposite party No. 2 was a member of the Scheduled Tribes he was a name lender only and the true aliened was Petitioner who does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes. The alienation without permission was thus void and he annulled it. A penalty of Rs. 720/- was imposed u/s 7 of the Regulation and possession was ordered to be delivered to opposite party No. 1. Petitioner as also opposite party No. 2 preferred an appeal to the Additional District Magistrate and by order dated 15-11-1972, the said appeal was dismissed. This writ application is directed against the said affirming appellate order. 3. In spite of notice, opposite party No. 1, at whose instance, the proceeding had been initiated, has not entered appearance. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite parties 3 and 4, that is the competent authority and the appellate authority, fairly concedes before us that it is very difficult for him to support the appellate order. 3. In spite of notice, opposite party No. 1, at whose instance, the proceeding had been initiated, has not entered appearance. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite parties 3 and 4, that is the competent authority and the appellate authority, fairly concedes before us that it is very difficult for him to support the appellate order. The appellate order makes no meaning and in fact, a bare reading thereof gives us the impression that mind has not been applied and a mechanical order of dismissal has been recorded. Ordinarily we would have quashed the appellate order and remitted the matter to the appellate forum for a fresh determination of the dispute, but the following are some of the special features which lead us to hold that the proceeding itself is vitiated and, therefore, it is appropriate that the same be quashed: (1) Opposite party No. 1, who made the application before the competent authority for relief, and his father Gopi Digapuria by a registered sale deed dated 11-4-1963 sold the disputed property to opposite party No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 900/-. The sale deed has been marked as Ext. A in the proceeding. In the face of such a sale deed, the plea of a mortgage as advanced by opposite party No. 1 could not have been raised and accepted by the Tribunals under the Regulation. (2) Ext. B is the Record-of-Rights and opposite party No. 2 stands recorded. Under the law, a presumption of correctness of the entry arises and, therefore until the contrary was established, it must be assumed on the basis of the statutory presumption that opposite party No. 2 was the purchaser. (3) On the principle that the apparent must be assumed to be the real, until the contending party establishes the apparent not to be the real, burden lay (sic) opposite party No. 1 to establish that the transaction was a benami one. Admittedly the vendee under the document is a member of the Scheduled Tribes, It is only when the Applicant before the competent authority (that is opposite party No. 1) was able to establish that opposite party No. 2 was not the real vendee, but Petitioner who admittedly does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes was the real purchaser, the application could not succeed. The tests of benami are well-known and no evidence has been led to support any of those tests and the forums below did not take any care to find out whether those tests exist in the case. We are thus satisfied that the proceeding has no foundation and accordingly it must be annulled. 4. The writ application is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The Petitioner must have his costs. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred to be recovered from opposite parties 3 and 4 only. K.B. Panda, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed