JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - A suo motu proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner u/s 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the allegation that the Petitioner being a non-Scheduled Caste had purchased the disputed land from one Naba Sethi, who belongs to Scheduled Caste by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15-1-1966, without prior permission of the competent authority as required u/s 22 of the Act. On receiving notice the Petitioner appeared and showed cause and contended that on 1-4-1962 an unregistered sale deed was executed in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the disputed land for a consideration of Rs. l,500/- and possession was delivered on 1-4-1962. Though the real transfer of the land was in the year 1962. the registered sale deed executed on 15-1-1966 was only the confirmation of the earlier sale. Since there was no prohibition for transfer of land in the year 1962 as the Act came into force in October, 1965, the said transfer does not come within the mischief' of the Act. 2. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer after considering all the materials on record, dropped the proceeding on the finding that the transfer of the land had taken place on 1-4-1962 prior to the Act coming into force. The predecessor-in-interest of opp. parties 1 to 5 filed appeal which was numbered as Revenue Appeal No. 21 of 1980. The learned appellate Court by its ord'er dated 10-10-1980 reversed the order of the learned trial Court and ordered for restoration of the suit land on the finding that the real transfer took place on 15-1-1966 by virtue of the registered sale deed and since the transfer was after the Act came into force and as no 814 prior permission had been obtained from the competent authority before such transfer, the transfer is hit by the provision of Section 22 of the Act. The Petitioner carried a revision to the Revisional Authority which was dismissed on merits. The orderii of appellate and revisional authorities are assailed in this writ application. 3. The Petitioner carried a revision to the Revisional Authority which was dismissed on merits. The orderii of appellate and revisional authorities are assailed in this writ application. 3. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that (a) the unregistered sale deed executed on 1-4-1962 conveyed valid title and the transfer being in the year 1962 is prior to the Act coming into force the application u/s 23 is not maintainable; (b) the O.L.R. Act does not specifically speak of a transfer by registered sale deed, the unregistered sale deed executed by opp. parties has to be taken as a valid transfer under the Act; (c) Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to this case. Hence the opp. parties are debarred from proceeding against the Petitioner; and (d) In view of the finding of the revisional Court that the Petitioner is in possession since 1-4-1962 and as Section 23-A came into force from 25-10-1976 by which date the Petitioner had perfected his title by adverse possession. For all the submissions the Petitioner relies on Nathulal Vs. Phoolchand 1988 (II) O.L.R. 293 (Radhamohan Patra and Ors. v. Gyanendra) Kar and 1988 O.L.R. 1 Dama Meher v. Champeswar Bentkar and Ors.). 4. The learned advocate for the State submits that since the unregistered sale deed did not transfer the title, sale deed dated 15-1-1966 only could convey title. The transfer being without valid permission, the judgments of the appeJ Iate authority and the revisional authority are'correct and should not be interfered with. 5. To this case Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act has no application. Though there was an unregistered sale deed on 1-41962 which even if construed as an agreement for sale, since a sale deed had actual1y been registered on 1-5-1966 the contract between the parties has been concluded and there is to question of any part performance of the contract. 1988 (II) O.L.R. 293 (supra) and Nathulal Vs. Phoolchand, have no application to this case; In our opinion, since the contract has been concluded, question of resorting to protection u/s 53-A does not arise. The finding of the revisional Court is as follows: During the hearing of the case the plea of long possession of the Petitioner was advanced by the learned Advocate. Phoolchand, have no application to this case; In our opinion, since the contract has been concluded, question of resorting to protection u/s 53-A does not arise. The finding of the revisional Court is as follows: During the hearing of the case the plea of long possession of the Petitioner was advanced by the learned Advocate. Admittedly, the Petitioner was in possession of the suit land from the year 1962, when the land was given to him by an unregistered sale deed. This possession has not conveyed or perfected the title of the Petitioner, over the disputed land as this unregistered transfer suffers from infirmities, title right, title interest were transferred by registered instrument was executed without any prior permission from the competent authority... The unregistered sale deed dated 1-4-1962 purported to convey title regarding immovable property of the value more than Rs. 100/-. In view of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act such a sale deed did not convey any title. The possession delivered in pursuance of the unregistered sale deed dated 1-4-1962 was definitely adverse to the interest of the opp. parties. While considering the nature of possession in violation of Section 22 of the Act, in 4 Ram Krushna Panda Vs. The Sub-Divisional Officer and Others, ), their Lordships observed as follows: In that context, if substituted Sub-section (2) of Section 23 is construed, it would mean that possession which the transferee acquired would be illegal from the date of transfer and he was to be penalised therefor. The transaction is void ab initio and the Revenue Officer is merely to declare it invalid after being satisfied upon enquiry. The sale deed dated 15-1-1966 could have conveyed valid title but for the facts that no prior permission had been taken from the Revenue Officer for such transfer and it comes within the mischief of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act. In 1988(I) O.L.R. 1 (supra) it has been held Section 23-A was inserted into the statute 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. 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 v. Gobardhan Gandaand Ors., 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.... which, in our opinion, is the correct position of law. The sale deed dated 15-1-1966 being a document void ab initio did not convey any title and the possession of the Petitioner from 1-4-1962 continued to be adverse against the opp. parties. Section 23-A was introduced by way of amendment which came into force from 25-10-1976 to take into its ambit the forcible possession. Since the finding of fact is that the Petitioner was in possession from 1-4-1962 which, in our opinion, is adverse possession, such adverse possession continued as the subsequent transfer on 15-1-1966 was void and by the time Section 23-A came into force, the Petitioner had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. 6. The learned appellate Court as well as the revisional Court have not taken into this aspect of the law and the order of the learned appellate Court as well as the revisional Court are liable to be quashed. We hereby quash the appellate order (Annexure-3) and the revisional order (Annexure-4). The writ application is allowed. But in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed