JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Defendant No. 1 is the Appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. Plaintiffs? case, shortly stated, is that the land belonged to one Asaram, who had two sons, Udhab and Brahma. Udhab died leaving behind Bhuleswar and Champeswar. Champeswar is Plaintiff No. 1. Bhuleswar died leaving behind his widow Duti and Duti is Defendant No. 2. Champeswar?s two sons are Plaintiffs 2 and 3 respectively whereas Brahma is Plaintiff No. 4. After death of Bhuleswar, sometime in the year 1960. Champeswar (Plaintiff No. 1) and Duti (Defendant No. 2) conveyed the suit land under a registered sale deed dated 30-3-1964 (Ext. A) for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. It is alleged in the plaint that Champeswar and Duti were illiterate and taking advantage of their illiteracy, Defendant No. 1 got the registered sale deed from them giving them an impression that it was a lease deed for a term of ten years. After 1974, when the Plaintiffs? went upon the suit land. .Defendant No. 1 credited trouble and declared that he had purchased the suit land. No permission having been taken from the competent authority under the provisions of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950, the sale is invalid. It was also contended in the plaint that the suit land being the joint property of the joint family. Champeswar and Duti had no right to sell. 3. Defendant No. 1 alone contested the sui t. His defence is that there had been a partition between the family long back and Udhab and Brahma were not members of a joint family. After death of Udhab. Champeswar and Bhuleswar inherited the suit land and on death of Bhuleswar, Champeswar became the Karta of the joint family. The transfer of land by Champeswar and Duti is, therefore, valid. According to the defence case, both Champeswar and Dud executed the sale deed with full knowledge of the contents and Defendant No. 1 is possessing the suit land as a rightful owner. It is his further case that there is no legal restriction for transfer of land by a member of Scheduled Tribes in favour of a member belonging to non-Scheduled tribes. 4. On these pleadings, the learned Munsif framed as many as 8 issues. It is his further case that there is no legal restriction for transfer of land by a member of Scheduled Tribes in favour of a member belonging to non-Scheduled tribes. 4. On these pleadings, the learned Munsif framed as many as 8 issues. The finding of the trial Court on issue No. 4 is that under the provisions of the Orissa Merged States? (Laws) Act, permission was necessary for transfer between the parties as admittedly Champeswar and Dud belong to Scheduled Tribes and Defendant No. 1 belongs to non-Scheduled tribes. Since the transfer under Ext. A is invalid, Defendant No. 1 does not derive any interest there under. On issue No. 5, the conclusion of the learned Munsif is that the suit having been filed within twelve years of the said transaction is within time. On these conclusions, the learned Munsif decreed the suit and decreed recovery of possession also. 5. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the sale by Champeswar and Duti in favour of Defendant No. 1 being a transaction between members of Scheduled Tribes and a member of non-Scheduled Tribes, under the provisions of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, permission of Sub-Divisional Magistrate was necessary before the transfer and since admittedly there had been no such permission, the sale was invalid. The learned Subordinate Judge also came to the conclusion that the suit having been filed within twelve years from the date of the sale transaction, there was no limitation. Before the lower appellate Court another contention had been urged on behalf of Defendant No. I, namely, the suit was barred u/s 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The said contention was considered at great length but was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge. 6. Mr. Acharya, the learned Counsel for the Appellant does not contest the position that the sale in question attracts the mischief of the provisions of the Orissa Merged States? (Laws) Act and, therefore, admittedly no prior permission having been obtained the sale is invalid. He, however, raises two contentions in this second appeal as regards the maintainability, of the suit. Mr. Acharya contends that the suit is barred u/s 7 (a) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws). (Laws) Act and, therefore, admittedly no prior permission having been obtained the sale is invalid. He, however, raises two contentions in this second appeal as regards the maintainability, of the suit. Mr. Acharya contends that the suit is barred u/s 7 (a) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws). Act and further in view of Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, Defendant No. 1 being in unauthorised occupation, it is the Revenue Officer who has the jurisdiction to cause restoration of the property to the raiyat and, therefore, the suit is barred u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Both these contentions though look attractive initially, yet are of no substance when a deeper examination is made. Section 7 (a) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act prohibits, suits and proceedings between landlord and tenant. Section 7 (a) is quoted hereinbelow in extenso for the sake of clarity: 7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy laws of the merged States as continued in force by virtue of Article 4 of the States Merger (Governor?s Provinces) Order, 1949 (a) all suits and proceedings between landlord and tenant as such shall be instituted and tried in revenue courts. Explanation-In this clause the expression ?landlord? shall mean a person immediately under whom a tenant holds land, and the expression ?tenant? shall mean a person who holds land under another person and is or, but for a special contract, would be liable to pay rent for that land to that person. The aforesaid provision is clear and categorical and all that it conveys is that a suit between a landlord and tenant has to be instituted and tried in revenue courts. The present suit by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a suit between landlord and tenant. The Plaintiffs will not come within the expression ?landlord? nor Defendant No. 1 will come within the expression ?tenant?? as defined in the Explanation to Section 7 (a), referred to supra. In that view of the matter, this contention of Mr. Acharya cannot be sustained. 7. Coming the other submission regarding applicability of Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, it depends upon an interpretation of the said provision. as defined in the Explanation to Section 7 (a), referred to supra. In that view of the matter, this contention of Mr. Acharya cannot be sustained. 7. Coming the other submission regarding applicability of Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, it depends upon an interpretation of the said provision. Section 23-A is quoted hereinbelow in extenso: 23-A. Eviction of person in unauthorised occupation of property: Where any person is found to be in unauthorised occupation of the whole or part of a holding of a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Caste or of a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe within any part of the State other than a Scheduled Area, by way of trespass or otherwise, the Revenue Officer may, either on application by the owner of any person interested therein or on his own motion, and after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, order eviction of the person so found to be in unauthorised occupation and shall cause restoration of the property to the said raiyat or to his heir in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 23. Mr. Acharya contends that since the sale is declared to be invalid, the possession of Defendant No. 1 must be held to be unauthorised in the eye of law and, therefore, such a person can be evicted by the Revenue Officer u/s 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act provides: 67. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts %: Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try and decide any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any Officer or other competent Authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide. Therefore, if Section 23-A would be applicable and if the relief asked for can be given by a Revenue Officer under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, then Section 67 takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Section 23-A was inserted into the statute by amendment by Act 44 of 1976 and it became operative with effect from 25.10-1976. Therefore, if Section 23-A would be applicable and if the relief asked for can be given by a Revenue Officer under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, then Section 67 takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Section 23-A was inserted into the statute by amendment by Act 44 of 1976 and it became operative with effect from 25.10-1976. If an unauthorised occupant has prescribed his title by adverse possession by the time Section 23-A came into the statute book, then the Revenue Officer will have no jurisdiction to restore possession of the property to the raiyat or to his heirs. It has been so decided in the case of Siani Nag Vs. Gobardhan Ganda and Others, by a Bench of this Court after considering all the relevant provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. In the present case, the sale being invalid, possession of Defendant No. 1 pursuant to the sale deed dated 30-3-1964 would be adverse by the time Section 23-A came into force and Defendant No. 1 would be held to have prescribed title by being in possession for more than twelve years. Section 23-A was obviously not there in the statute book when the suit was filed. Section 23-A has been held to be prospective. Therefore, the Revenue Officer will not be in a position to restore possession to the Plaintiffs in the present case u/s 23-A. If the Plaintiffs cannot get the relief of recovery of possession from the Revenue Officer u/s 23-A, in view of the discussions made earlier, then obviously the suit will not be barred u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. I would, therefore, unhesitatingly reject the second submission of Mr. Acharya for the Appellant. 8. No other contention having been .raised and both the contentions urged having failed, this second appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits, but in the circumstances, there would be no order for costs. Final Result : Dismissed