JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - Petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order of the Revenue Officer-cum- Tahasildar, Rairangpur directing his eviction u/s 8(1)(c) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The Revenue Officer initiated a proceeding (O.L.R. Case No. 10/78) u/s 8 of the Act on the allegation that the Petitioner has used the land measuring A 1.60 decimals appetaining to plot No. 1172 (AO.93 decimals) and plot No. 1173 (A.O. 67 decimals) of village Bisoi for a purpose other than agriculture by establishing a saw mill over without taking prior permission of the concerned authority. The Petitioner after receipt of the notice from opp. party No. 2 filed an objection denying the said allegation and stating that the land in question was never used for agriculture either by the Petitioner or his vendor from whom he purchased it on 15-4-1978. According to the Petitioner, his vendor had purchased the land 15 years prior to his purchase and had constructed various houses and structures thereon for manufacturing country liquor and had established a distillery after obtaining a licence from the Collector of the district. The Petitioner further stated that the land in question was described in the revenue records as tallow land and at no point of time the same was fit for carrying on agricultural operation as its bed was hard laterite stone. It being a road side land, the Petitioner after his purchase established a saw mill there and in these circumstances it was prayed that the proceeding for eviction u/s 8 of the Act should be dropped. The Revenue Officer in his final order passed on 27-2-1979 (Annexure-I) did not at all deal with the case of the Petitioner that his vendor having purchased the land some time in 1963 had constructed houses for manufacture of country liquor, but proceeded to find out if the land in question would still be regarded as agriculture land even though it is either incapable of being cultivated or has never been used for agricultural purposes at any time ever before. On the basis of the conclusion that the said land would still be regarded as agricultural land, the Revenue Officer found fault with the Petitioner for having used the same for a purpose other than agriculture and directed re-settlement of the 'land on payment of salami of Rs. On the basis of the conclusion that the said land would still be regarded as agricultural land, the Revenue Officer found fault with the Petitioner for having used the same for a purpose other than agriculture and directed re-settlement of the 'land on payment of salami of Rs. 29.973.35 P. and fixing the annual rent at Rs529.60P. The Petitioner carried up the matter in appeal, but the appellate court by its order dt. 28-2-1982 in O.L.R. Appeal No. 3/83 dismissed the same holding that the order passed u/s 8(1) of the Act is not appealable. 3. The Petitioner, among various other points has also challenged the order of the Revenue Officer on the ground that conversion of the land for being used for a purpose other than agriculture, if at all, was done by the vendor of the Petitioner some time in 1963 before the O.L.R. Act came into operation and, therefore, the proceeding u/s 8(1) of the Act. was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. He further contended that there is no evidence whatsoever to come to a finding that it is the Petitioner who was responsible for the conversion of the land from that of agriculture to a different category and the order of the Revenue Officer is, therefore, vitiated. We find from the records that the Petitioner bad taken a categorical stand that he has never converted the land to be used for nonagricultural purposes and the conversion if any was in fact made by his vendor long prior to the Act came into force. During the course of argument no material could be placed by the opp. parties suggesting that the Petitioner had made the alleged conversion of the land from agriculture to that of non-agriculture. On the other hand, the impugned order in Annexure-1 makes a specific reference to an enquiry held in that case from which it appears that the land cannot be re-converted to be used for agricultural purposes as a saw-mill has already been started thereon. In the absence of any evidence led by the opp. -parties substantiating the allegations made against the Petitioner, it must be assumed that constructions were raised for the first time by the vendor of the Petitioner some time in the year 1963. Section 8 of the Act occurring in Chapter-II of the Act came into force on 1st day of October. 1965. -parties substantiating the allegations made against the Petitioner, it must be assumed that constructions were raised for the first time by the vendor of the Petitioner some time in the year 1963. Section 8 of the Act occurring in Chapter-II of the Act came into force on 1st day of October. 1965. It is, therefore, clear that the alleged conversion, if at all, was made prior to the commencement of this Act. It has been held on several occasions by this Court that the provisions in a Statute specially involving consequence for breach of law are not retrospective and it, therefore, follows that violation of the law, if any, which was committed by the vendor of the, Petitioner prior to the coming into force of the Act would not be covered by Section 8 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order of eviction passed against the Petitioner in Annexure-1 is liable to be quashed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner is neither liable to be evicted u/s 8(1) of the Act nor the question of re-settlement arises, for consideration. 4. It therefore, allow the writ application and quash Annexures 1 and 2. There shall be no order as to costs. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed