JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner has assailed the order of the Revenue Officer under Annexure-4 made in order Section 3(2) of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1955 (Orissa Regulation' 2 of 1956) (hereinafter called the "Regulations") as well as tbe order of the Additional District Magistrate in appeal confirming the order of the Revenue Officer, annexed as Annexure-5. By the impugned orders the transfer of land made by one Balaram Orang bas been held to be illegal and invalid as it was a transfer made by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a member of a non-Scheduled Tribe without previous concept in writing of the competent authority. 2. On tbe basis of an application filed by one Balaram Orang, the Revenue Officer initiated a proceeding under the Regulations. It was alleged in the said application that Balaram's elder brother Sukan Orang sold lands in favored the Petitioner without any prior permission of the competent authority and accordingly it was prayed that the Petitioner be dispossessed and possession be restored to the applicant. According to the applicants case under three different sale deeds dated 20-10-1967,11-5-1968 and 20-9-1970. the Petitioner purchased different parcels of land from the members of the Orang family which constitutes of the widow of the common ancestor Sanchari Bewa and three sons, namely Balaram, Rasa and Sukan. After the said purchase the Petitioner has been recorded in the Record-of-Rights and was in peaceful possession tin the Revenue Officer initiated the proceeding u/s 3 of the Regulations. The Petitioner filed his objection before the Revenue Officer contending therein that the transferrers do not belong to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes for Orissa and, therefore, the restriction contained in the Regulations has no application. 3. In the inquiry proceeding, the Revenue Officer though was confronted with the sale deeds wherein the transferors have been described as "Mudi" by caste and in one of the sale deeds (sale deed dated 11-5-1968) described as "Cada" by caste, yet relying upon the oral evidence that it is same as "Orang" and "Orang" is a Schedule caste notified in the Presidential Order, came to the conclusion that the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Regulation applied and, therefore, held that the transfer in question had been made in contravention of Section 3 of the Regulations. He, therefore, ordered that the possession, of the land be restored to the vendors or their legal heirs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50/- on the Petitioner. On appeal by the Petitioner, tbe Additional District Magistrate also affirmed tbe conclusion of the Revenue Officer and hence the present writ application. 4. The only contention urged by Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the caste "Mudi" or 'Cada" which is tbe caste of the vendors as described in the sale deeds not being a caste or tribe referable to any of the entries notified in the Presidential Order for Orissa, it was not open to the authorities under the Regulations to come to a conclusion that the vendors in the instant case, came within the caste "Orang" particularly when there was no material before the Revenue Officer in course of the inquiry to come to the said conclusion. Accordingly, the conclusion in question cannot be sustained in law. We find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 5. It is not disputed that the caste "Mudi" or "Cada" is not mentioned in the List appended to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as a caste or tribe for Orissa. In the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, in Part-XIII for Orissa 93 entries are there. The caste "Cada" or "Mudi" is not included therein. Similarly in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, in Part-XIII for Orissa, 62 entries are there and neither "Cada" nor "Mudi" is included therein. The Revenue Officer however, has included both these castes in the caste "Orang". Even the caste "Orang" is also not there in any of tbe entries under tbe aforesaid Presidential,Orders. Entry 53 in Part-XIII of the Constitution' (Scheduled Tribes) Order. 1950, describes it as "Oraon". The question for consideration, therefore, is whether it was permissible for the authorities to come to a conclusion that "Cada" or "Mudi" would come within the caste "Orang", assuming that "Orang" is same thing as "Oraon" which is described in Entry-53 of Part-XIII of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. The law on the subject has been fully discussed by a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Pati Vs. The law on the subject has been fully discussed by a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Pati Vs. Paramananda Sethi and Others and Smt. Nilamani Sethi and Others After considering a number of authorities of the Supreme Court as well as earlier decisions of this Court on the subject, it has been held in the aforesaid case that the area of investigation conferred upon the authority is too limited, namely, to include only such sub-tribes or sub-castes which may be the species of the main caste or the notified in the Presidential Order. An altogether different tribe or caste which cannot be said to be a sub-tribe or group of the mainstream of the notified community cannot be included and cannot by any stretch of imagination, be included by the executive machinery thus giving an expanded meaning to the list of communities and tribes notified by the Presidential Order. The leading case on the question is that of Bhaiyalal Vs. Harikishan Singh and Others It, has been laid down by the Supreme Court in that case that no enquiry is permissible as to whether a particular sub-caste or included in the caste mentioned in the notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution to find out as to whether it was a Scheduled Caste. It is not necessary for us to' discuss other authorities which have been noted in Prafulla Kumar Pati Vs. Paramananda Sethi and Others and Smt. Nilamani Sethi and Others, (referred to supra). In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, there is no hesitation in our mind to come to the conclusion that the revenue authorities committed gross error of law in coming to the conclusion that "Cada" and "Mudi" are the same thing as "Oraon", Even the said conclusion there was no material other than a bald assertion of a witness. In that view of the matter and in view of the permissible limit of enquiry and bearing in mind the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bhaiyalal Vs. Harikishan Singh and Others, as wen as the decision in Prafulla Kumar Pati Vs. In that view of the matter and in view of the permissible limit of enquiry and bearing in mind the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bhaiyalal Vs. Harikishan Singh and Others, as wen as the decision in Prafulla Kumar Pati Vs. Paramananda Sethi and Others and Smt. Nilamani Sethi and Others we hold that the Revenue Officer as well as the Additional District Magistrate committed gross error of law and jurisdiction in treating the caste "Mudi" and "Cada" as "Oraon" Since "Mudi" and "Cada" are not referable to any of the notified items under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order as well as the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Regulations has no application and accordingly the transfer in question cannot come within the purview of the Regulations, The impugned order of the Revenue Officer as per Annexure-4 as well as the order of the Additional District Magistrate confirming the same as per Annexure-5 is without jurisdiction and we accordingly set aside the same. This writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. J. Das, J. 6. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed