JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - This is an application for issue of writ of certiorari. Prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 21-5-1979 passed by the Competent Authority under Regulation II of 1956, Koraput, in as O.S.A. I.P.R. Case No. 261 of 1977 and the order dated 29-6-1981 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Koraput, in O.S.A. I.P.R. A No. 28 of 1979. 2. The facts stated briefly are that the Petitioner Ghasi Dora claiming himself as a member of the Scheduled Tribe, being of Konda Dora sub-caste purchased some lands by a registered sale dead from opposite party No. 1 Arjuna Sisa and his father Guru Sisa of village Silpada, P.S. Machkund district Koraput on 29-1-1962. Subsequently it was disputed that Ghasi Dora did not belong to the Schedule Tribe Hence, a S.A.T.I.P.R. Case being Case No. 261 of 1977 was registered and enquiry was made as to whether Ghasi Dora is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. In an earlier order dated 27-12-1976, in a S.A.T.I.P.R. Case No. 32 of 1975, the Competent Authority rejected the claim of Ghasi Dora that he was a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The writ Petitioner Ghasi Dora preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Koraput being O.S.A.T.I.P. Appeal No. 6 of 1977. The appellate authority remanded the case to the Competent Authority for fresh enquiry. 3. After remand, it appears that the Competent Authority asked the B.D.O. Nandapur to make an enquiry as to whether the writ Petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe or not. The B.D.O. Nandapur vide his letter No. 566 dated 14-2-1979 reported that the writ Petitioner Ghasi Dora was 'Rana' by caste and hence he was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. It appears from Annexure-1 that the Competent Authority mainly relied upon the report of the B.D.0. and held that the writ Petitioner Ghasi Dora was 'Rana' by caste and he was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe and on the basis of this finding the Competent Authority passed order on 21.5-1979 for the eviction of the writ Petitioner from the land in question. 4. Against the order of the Competent authority, the writ Petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, who upheld the order of the Competent Authority. 4. Against the order of the Competent authority, the writ Petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, who upheld the order of the Competent Authority. In these circumstances, the writ Petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Competent Authority and the A.D.M. 5. This is a peculiar case. The sale took place by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 29-1-1962 and in the sale deed the writ Petitioner Ghasi Dora has been described as Kanda Dora by sub-caste, the members of which belong to Scheduled Tribe. After the sale, it appears that the writ Petitioner remained in possession of the lands in question for a very long time and after 15 years, dispute arose that the transferee Ghasi Dora writ Petitioner, is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. Thus a very important question is involved and that question has bearing on the status of the writ Petitioner as well as his substantive right. In such circumstances, it is of utmost importance that the Competent Authority should make the enquiry with utmost care and caution. 6. Relevant portion of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Orissa Scheduled Areas transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 reads as follows: 3(1) x x x x (2) Where a transfer of immovable property is made in contravention of Sub-Section (1) competent authority may; either on application by anyone interested therein or on his own motion and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard order ejectment against any person in possession of the property claiming under the transfer and shall cause restoration of possession of such property to the transferor or his heirs. In causing such restoration of possession the competent authority may take such steps as may be necessary for Sectionuring compliance with the said order or preventing any breach of place. x x x x. It is clear from the above provision of law that the enquiry has to be made by the Competent Authority himself by observing the principles of natural justice There is no scope for authorizing the enquiry to another officer and to act upon the report of such Officer. 7. x x x x. It is clear from the above provision of law that the enquiry has to be made by the Competent Authority himself by observing the principles of natural justice There is no scope for authorizing the enquiry to another officer and to act upon the report of such Officer. 7. In this case the Competent Authority entrusted the enquiry to the B.D.O. It is also clear that the Competent Authority has been influenced by the report of the B.D.O. and has acted upon the same. Such a course of action is not a warranted under the law and hence, the order passed by the Competent Authority (Annexure-1) must be held to be illegal and void. Consequently the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Annexure-2) cannot also be said to be legally valid. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Annexure 1 and 2 or the writ petition are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority for a fresh inquiry in accordance with law. R.C. Patnaik, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed