JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The orders passed by the statutory authorities in the proceeding u/s 23-A of the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are in challenge in this writ application. The Petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders as per Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to the writ application. 2. The proceeding u/s 23-A of the Act was initiated on the application filed by the opposite party No. 1 Ainla Naikani on 20-11-1976 before the Sub-divisional Officer, Dharamgarh to restore the disputed land Ac. 5.74 dec. in Khata No. 63 of village Moter which she had sold to the Petitioner Butu Naik by registered sale deed dated 16-4-1963 on the ground that the transfer was invalid being hit by Section 7(b)(i) of the Orissa Merged States (laws) Act, 1950. The specific grounds of challenge to the sale was that the transferrer is a member of a Scheduled Tribe being 'Banjara' by caste while the transferee is Mali by caste and not a member of Scheduled Tribe and the transfer was effected without prior permission of the Sub-divisional Magistrate concerned. Initially, the Sub-divisional Officer, dropped the proceeding holding that it was not maintainable since the transfer was made prior to the enforcement of the Act. On appeal by the opposite party No. 1, the Addl. District Magistrate, Kalahandi set aside the order and remitted the case to the Sub-divisional Officer for fresh consideration and disposal with the direction to consider particularly the question whether the transferor was Banjara by caste and therefore a member of the Scheduled Tribe while the transferee was not a member of such tribe. On fresh enquiry the Sub-divisional Officer by the order dated 18-7-1989 as per Annexure 1 held that the sale was invalid and directed the Petitioner to restore the case land to the opposite party No. 1. On appeal by the Petitioner, the Addl. District Magistrate, Kalahandi by order dated 8-2-1982 as per Annexure-2 agreed with the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the impugned sale was contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 and came within the purview of Section 23-A of the Act, confirmed the order and disposed of the appeal. District Magistrate, Kalahandi by order dated 8-2-1982 as per Annexure-2 agreed with the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the impugned sale was contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 and came within the purview of Section 23-A of the Act, confirmed the order and disposed of the appeal. The revision filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the Special Officer, land Reforms, Southern Division, Orissa, Berhampur by the order dated 30-11-1982 as per Annexure-3. The said orders are challenged mainly on three grounds (a) that the opposite party No 1 not being a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the transfer is not prohibited under any provision of law; (b) that the application fired u/s 23-A is not maintainable; and (c) that assuming the application u/s 23-A to be maintainable the same is barred by time. The opposite parties in the returns filed by them have supported the impugned orders. 3. Shri N.C. Panigrahi appearing far the Petitioner in course of his submissions reiterated the aforementioned grounds of challenge. 4. We propose to take up first the latter two points as formulated above, If they are answered in favour of the Petitioner, it win not be necessary to consider: he first point. On behalf of the Petitioner it is contended that the proceeding u/s 23-A of the Act is not maintainable since the Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to direct restoration of the case land to the opposite party No. 1. In support of this contention it is urged that before filing of the application u/s 23-A, in 1976 the Petitioner-transferee had been in possession of the land for twelve years and therefore had perfected his title to the property by adverse possession. It is further urged that the amended provision substituting twelve years by thirty years' period of limitation has no application to the proceeding u/s 23-A. It is not the case of the opposite party No. 1 and in the facts of the case, rightly, that the transfer of the case land in favour of Petitioner was hit by Section 22 of the Act. Indeed, Chapter II of the Act which includes Sections 22, 23-A and 23-B came into force in. 1965 and the transfer in the present case was prior to that date. Indeed, Chapter II of the Act which includes Sections 22, 23-A and 23-B came into force in. 1965 and the transfer in the present case was prior to that date. It is the case of the opposite party No. 1 that the transfer was hit under the provisions of Section 7(b) of the Orissa Merged States' (laws) Act, 1950 which prohibited transfer of property by a member of the aboriginal tribe to a person not belonging to such a tribe without prior permission of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anadi Mohanta (dead) and after him Kointa Mohanta and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, held that a transfer by a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe which is challenged under provisions, not of the Act, but any other law, cannot be declared invalid in a proceeding u/s 23 of the Act, but restoration of such property can be directed only in a proceeding u/s 23-A of the Act. Therefore, in the present case the authorities rightly initiated the proceeding u/s 23-A of the Act. 5. The next question is what is the requisite period of possession in respect of such land to perfect title by adverse possession, whether twelve years or thirty years. Section 23-B as it stands now was inserted in the Act in 1976 by Act 44 of 1976. In Sub-section (2) of this section it is provided that in the Limitation Act, 1963 in its application to proceedings u/s 23, in the Schedule, after the words 'twelve years' occurring in the second column against Article 65, the words, brackets and figures" but thirty years in the case of immovable property belonging to a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a Scheduled Caste, specified in relation to the State of Orissa in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 or the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 as the case may be shall be inserted. It has been held by this Court in the case of Siani Nag Vs. Gobardhan Ganda and Others, that Section 23-B(2) has application only to a proceeding u/s 23 of the Act and it is not applicable to a proceeding u/s 23-A of the Act. It has been held by this Court in the case of Siani Nag Vs. Gobardhan Ganda and Others, that Section 23-B(2) has application only to a proceeding u/s 23 of the Act and it is not applicable to a proceeding u/s 23-A of the Act. It follows therefore that the period of 30 years which is introduced in Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by amendment under Sub-section (2) has no application to a proceeding u/s 23-A. In such a case therefore the period of limitation is twelve years as provided under Article 65. In the present case, while the transfer was effected in 1963, the proceeding u/s 23-A was initiated in 1976 i.e., beyond twelve years from the date of transfer. Therefore, the Petitioner-transferee having remained in unauthorised occupation of the land for more than twelve years, had perfected his title to the property by adverse possession and the Sub-divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to disturb his possession. No case was pleaded or proved on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 transferor that the transferee possessed the property !Jot from the date of the transfer but on any date subsequent thereto. The Sub-divisional Officer erred in entertaining the application filed u/s 23-A on the assumption that the extended period of limitation of thirty years was applicable to the proceeding. The inescapable conclusion is that the application filed by opposite party No. 1 u/s 23-A of the Act being barred by time, was not maintainable. 6. The above finding is sufficient to bring success of the Petitioner in this case. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider the other contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the opposite party No. 1 being not a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the transfer was not prohibited under any provision of law. 7. Before parting with the case, I would like to deal with a situation that arises from the provisions in Sections 23, 23-A and 23-B of the Act, which in my view, leads to anomalous position. The present Section 23-B, which was previously Section 23-A, was introduced in the statute by amendment (the Orissa land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974) (Orissa Act 9 of 1974). The present Section 23-A was inserted in the Act by amendment by Orissa land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 1976, Orissa Act 44 of 1976. The present Section 23-B, which was previously Section 23-A, was introduced in the statute by amendment (the Orissa land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974) (Orissa Act 9 of 1974). The present Section 23-A was inserted in the Act by amendment by Orissa land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 1976, Orissa Act 44 of 1976. While introducing the new provisions, the legislature in its wisdom decided that Section 23-A of the Principal Act shall be re-numbered as Section 23-B and before Section 23-B is so re-numbered, the new section shall be inserted. On plain reading of the provisions of Section 23-B(1), it is manifest that the section applies to a proceeding u/s 23 but not to a proceeding u/s 23-A. The resultant position is that in a case where the transfer by a member of Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe is challenged under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, the period of limitation under Article 65 is thirty years whereas if a similar transfer is challenged on the basis of the provisions of any other law, the period of limitation is 12 years. Further, a transferee under' a document executed by a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is in a worse position than a trespasser, who is in unauthorised occupation of land belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, inasmuch as, while the former has to remain in possession of 30 years to perfect his title by adverse possession the latter can acquire title to the land by remaining in possession for 12 years. It is pertinent to stress here that the intent, purpose and principle underlying both the provisions of Sections 23 and 23-A is to protect the properties belonging to the members of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, who are usually subjected to exploitation by other communities. Therefore, there appears to be no rational basis for differentiation between the proceeding under the aforementioned two sections. In order to achieve the intent and purpose of the provisions, Section 23-B(2) should be made applicable to proceedings, both under Sections 23 and 23-A of the Act. Steps may be taken suitably to amend Section 23-B(1), and the sooner it is done the better. 8. On the analysis and the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ application is allowed, the impugned orders as per Annexures 1, 2, and 3 are quashed. There will however be no order as to costs. Steps may be taken suitably to amend Section 23-B(1), and the sooner it is done the better. 8. On the analysis and the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ application is allowed, the impugned orders as per Annexures 1, 2, and 3 are quashed. There will however be no order as to costs. A. Pasayat, J. 9. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed