JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo-motu revision under Section 59(2) of the O. L. R. Act. Collector, Kalahandi has moved this revision against orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhawanipatna in R. M. C. No 4/79 under Section 23-A of the O. L. R. Act. 2. Negi Domb is a Scheduled Caste. He had Ac. 14.45 of land in village Thuapedar. The land was Choukidari Chakran land. 3. On 1-5-1965 the Village Police Offices were abolished. On 10-6-1965 by a registered sale deed No. 2331 Negi Domb sold 1.92 acres of land out of Choukidari Chakran land to Lakhapati Jani of Thuapadar for a consideration of Rs. 400/-. 4. On 25-3-1967 aforesaid 14.45 acres were settled on raiyati basis with Negi Domb by the Tahasildar under the Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, 5. On 10-1-1979 wife of late Negi Damb and 4 others filed a petition before the S. D. O., Bhawanipatna under Section 23-A of the O. L. R. Act to evict the purchaser Sri Lakhpati Jani from the disputed land and restore this land to them on the grounds that Negi Domb had no saleable interest over the land on the date of registration and that he had not taken permission from the proper quarter for such sale. 6. On 11-8-1980 S. D. O. directed restoration of the land treating the transfer as unauthorised for want of prior permission. 7. On 16-8-1980 Lakhpati Jani filed a review petition under Section 60 before the S. D. O. This was rejected on 25-11-1980. No appeal was filed against this. 8. Additional Standing Counsel points out that Choukidari lands vested in Government on l-5-1965 free from all encumbrances. Negi Domb was given raiyati status on 25-3-1967. In the interregnum period, that is between 1-5-1965 and 25-3-1967 Negi Domb had no raiyati right over this land and as such he could not sell it. .He relies on this Court's decision, reported in J. B R -XII(1976) Part 1-39 wherein it has been held that the title and possession of the Village Officers is extinguished on vesting and Section 22 is not attracted if the sale is between the appointed date and the date of settlement of this land with the Village Officers. 9. Shri Srinivas Misra (2) appears for the O. Ps 2 to 5. He points out that cultivating possession on the appointed date is relevant. 9. Shri Srinivas Misra (2) appears for the O. Ps 2 to 5. He points out that cultivating possession on the appointed date is relevant. Under Rule 9(3)(e) under the Rules at the time of Settlement, Tahasildar has to collect rent with retrospective effect from the appointed date. 10. Section 23-A of the O. L. R. Act refers to unauthorised possession. This section applies in this case. 11. He also relies on 39(1973) C. L. T. 551, wherein it has been held that with reference to O. E. A. Act under Section 6 settlement after vesting is automatic. Such Settlement should be treated as settlement from the date of vesting. In the present case under the Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act also the same principles as in O. E. A. Act will held good. 12. I agree with Sri Srinivas Misra that the High Court decision also is applicable to the present case. As such Negi Domb may be treated as having title and possession of this land from the appointed date retrospectively. As a result, at the time of sale in June 1965 Negi Domb is to be treated as having full title and right over the land. 13. Again as Negi Domb did not take permission of the Competent Authority, the sale is void under Section 22(1). Under Section 23-A. Lakhpati Jani is to be considered as in unauthorised possession of this land. Order for eviction is, therefore, legal under Section 23-A. 14. I would, therefore, dismiss the revision and upheld the decision of the S. D O., Bhawanipatna. Final Result : Dismissed