JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The core question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the application for restoration of the disputed property filed by the predecessor-in-jauntiest of opposite Parties 1(a) to 1(d) under provisions of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immoveable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (Regulation-2 of 1956) was maintainable. 2. The proceeding was initiated in 1976 suo motu by the opposite party No. 2, Officer on Special Duty under Regulation II of 1956 at Parlekhemundi to restore the disputed property transferred by Mukunda Raipatra, the predecessor-in-interest of opposite parties 1(a) to 1(d), a member of the scheduled tribe to the writ Petitioner Burulu Ramllu who is not a member of the scheduled tribe. Previously another proceeding had been initiated before the opposite party No. 2 in 1971 for restoration of the self-same property which was rejected by the authority on the ground that the transfer in question having been made on 25-6-1954 prior to enforcement of Regulation II of 1956 was not hit by the provisions made therein. After certain provisions of the Regulations were amended in 1975 the suo motu proceeding from which this writ petition arises was initiated in 1978 and by the order dated 26-12-1978 as per Annexure-4 the opposite party No. 2 directed the Petitioner to restore the disputed property to the opposite party No. 1. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the writ application seeking to quash the said order. 3. On perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-4), it appears that the authority particularly relied upon the amended provisions in Section 7-D of the Regulation in support of his order. The provision reads as follows: 7-D. Amendment of the limitation Act, 1963 in its application to the Scheduled Areas: In the limitation Act, 1963 in its application to the Scheduled Areas in the Schedule, after the words 'twelve years' occurring in the Sectionond column against Article 65, the words, brackets and figure but thirty years in relation to immoveable property belonging to a member of a Scheduled Tribe specified in respect of the State of Orissa in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as modified from time to time shall be added.... Interpreting the provision, he took the view that 30 years having been substituted in place of 12 years, any transfer on any date within 30 years prior to 1975 could be questioned under the provisions of the Regulation and the transferee be held to be in unauthorised occupation of the property if any provision of the Regulation is found to be violated. 4. Sri Padhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenges the order submitting that the provision of Section 7-D though introduced in the Regulation in 1975 was given retrospective effect from 2nd October, 1973. But long prior to that, the writ Petitioner had perfected his title to the land by adverse possession since the transfer of the property was made by unregistered sale deed on 25-6-1954 and possession of the vendee was adverse from the very inception. Sri Padhi further contends that the right vested in the writ Petitioner after expiry of 12 years from the date of transfer could not be taken heavy by virtue of the amendment in Section 7-0 of the Regulation. 5. On the facts discussed in the preceding paragraphs there appears to be no escape from the conclusion that opposite party No. 2 clearly erred in initiating the proceeding for restoration of the property under Regulation II of 1956. 6. The position his to be accepted as well settled that the vested right of a personal cannot be divested unless there is express provision in the statute indicating in that way. But, in the present case the legislature while making the amendment in 1975 substituting the period of 12 years by 30 years give it only limited retrospective effect from 2nd October, 1973. Therefore, if a person had perfected his title by adverse possession over the property for the requisite period i.e. 12 years, he had a-vested right over the said property and such right is not Intended to be affected by the amendment in Section 7-0 of the Regulation. If any decision is necessary in support of the view, we may refer to the case of Indramani Jena and Others Vs. Dandasi Paik and Others, . 7. We, therefore, allow the writ application impugned orders in Annexures 4 and 5. The proceeding party No. 2 i.e. R.M.C. No. 191 of 1978 is dropped. Both parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding. J. Das, J. 8. I agree. Writ application allowed. Dandasi Paik and Others, . 7. We, therefore, allow the writ application impugned orders in Annexures 4 and 5. The proceeding party No. 2 i.e. R.M.C. No. 191 of 1978 is dropped. Both parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding. J. Das, J. 8. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed