JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This writ petition arises out of a proceeding u/s 21-A of the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as O.L.R. Act'), The Petitioners have challenged the order of the Revenue Officer in Annexure-5 which was confirmed by the appellate Court in Annexure-6 as well as by the revisional Court in Annexure-7 directing restoration of the land in question in favour of opp. Parties 1 to 3. 2. The undisputed facts are that the father of the Petitioners purchased the disputed land measuring (sic) 60 decimals from the father of the opp. Parties under a registered sale deed N.J. 1871 dated 18-9-1963 for consideration. The opp. Parties are members of the Scheduled Tribe I whereas the family of the Petitioners belongs to non-Scheduled Tribe. It has been found that prior permission was obtained from the appropriate revenue authority at the time of sale. The present Petitioners' case is that they had been in possession of the disputed property with effect from the date of purchase by their father and have otherwise acquired title by adverse possession. The father of the opp. Parties initiated a proceeding u/s 23 of the O.L.R. Act alleging that the sale was effected without obtaining prior permission from the revenue authorities and, therefore, they are entitled to be restored with the possession of the property. The present Petitioners have shown cause before the Revenue Officer alleging that they had obtained due permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhawanipatna on 20-9-1960, and therefore, the petition u/s 23 of the O.L.R. Act is not maintainable. 3. It is apparent that since the transfer had taken place prior to the date when the Orissa land Reforms Act came into force, no permission could be obtained u/s 22 of the O.L.R. Act for transfer of a land by a member of the Scheduled Tribe to a member of the non-Scheduled Tribe. Thus, there was no contravention of Section 22 of the Act. Consequently a proceeding u/s 23 of the O.L.R. Act cannot be maintainable. The proceeding was, however, converted to one u/s 23-A of the O.L.R. Act, which provides for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of the property. Thus, there was no contravention of Section 22 of the Act. Consequently a proceeding u/s 23 of the O.L.R. Act cannot be maintainable. The proceeding was, however, converted to one u/s 23-A of the O.L.R. Act, which provides for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of the property. After verification of the mutation records it was found that the permission which was relied upon by the Petitioners in the proceeding was of the year 1965" and not of the year 1960 as stated in their show cause. The Revenue Officer found that prior to the coming into force of the O.L.R. Act, the Orissa Merged States (laws) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1950') was in force which contained a provision in Section 7(b) that no transfer of a holding from a member of aboriginal tribe to a member of a non-aboriginal tribe shall be valid unless such transfer IS with the previous permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. The Revenue Officer further held that the transfer made in favour of the father of the Petitioners being in contravention of the provisions, contained in Section 7(b) of the Act of 1950 was invalid and, therefore, the possession of the father of the Petitioners as well as that of the Petitioners must be held to be unauthorised within the meaning of Section 23-A of the O.L.R. Act. He, therefore, directed restoration of possession of the properties in favour of the present opp. Parties 1 to 3. The aforesaid order of the Revenue Officer in Annexure-5 was cancelled before the Additional District Magistrate. Kalahandi in O.L.R. Appeal No. 24 of 1980, who is the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority in agreement with the findings of the Revenue Officer also held that the sale in favour of the father of the Petitioners is invalid as no prior permission of the competent revenue authority u/s 7(b) of the Act of 1950 was obtained before the alleged transfer. On this basis the appellate authority also concluded that the possession of the Petitioners was unauthorised and they are evictable u/s 23-A of the O.L.R. Act. On this basis the appellate authority also concluded that the possession of the Petitioners was unauthorised and they are evictable u/s 23-A of the O.L.R. Act. The Petitioners also carried the matter in revision (O.L.R. Revision Case No. 6/83) and the Special Officer, land Reforms in his order in Annexure-7 was of the same view as that of his subordinate authorities and confirmed the order of restoration of possession of the properties to the opp. Parties. In the present writ application the Petitioners have assailed the findings of each of the aforesaid authorities in Annexures-5, 6 and 7. 4. learned Counsel for the Petitioners has urged the following points in support of his prayer for quashing the aforesaid Annexures, 5, 6 and 7: (i) The possession of the father of the Petitioners as well as that of the Petitioners cannot be held to be unauthorised within the meaning of Section 23-A of the O.L.R. Act, inasmuch as no prior permission from the Revenue Officer was necessary prior to the sale in question in the year 1963 (ii) Assuming that such permission was necessary the transaction of sale would be invalid in law from the date it took place and, therefore, the possession of the father of Petitioners as well as that of the Petitioners is not referable to any lawful title and, therefore, adverse to that of the true owner. The proceeding under the OLR Act for restoration of possession was initiated in the year 1980 by which time the Petitioners had perfected title by adverse possession for which reason they are not evictable u/s 23-A of the OLR. Act. (iii) The property in question being a homestead property situated within the municipal area of Bhawanipatna, it would not come under the purview of the OLR Act. Each of the aforesaid points requires careful consideration, 5. The O.L.R. Act, 1960 came into force in 1-10-1965. Therefore, Section 22 of the said Act which imposes a restriction on alienation of land by a member of the Scheduled Tribe to a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe was not operative prior to the aforesaid date. In this view of the matter the alienation effected in the year 1963 cannot be said to be in contravention of Section 22 of the Act. In this view of the matter the alienation effected in the year 1963 cannot be said to be in contravention of Section 22 of the Act. Consequently the provision for restoration of possession of the property transferred without permission of the Revenue authority u/s 23 of the Act would not be available. The only question for consideration is whether the possession of the Petitioners can be said to be unauthorised without the meaning of Section 23-A of the OLR Act. The Revenue Officer as well as the appellate and revisional authorities proceeded on the assumption that the restriction for such transfer contained in Section 7(b) of the Act of 1950 was in force when the transfer in question took place in the year 1963 and, therefore, the sale was invalid and the possession of the transferees was, therefore, unauthorised. Section 7(b) of the Act of 1950 as it originally stood no doubt contained a restriction that the transfer of a member of in aboriginal tribe to a member of non-aboriginal tribe is invalid unless made with the previous permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned but the said restriction was repealed by Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956, Orissa. Regulation 2 of 1956 contained a single restriction in Section 3 thereof which prohibited transfer of any immovable property situated within a scheduled area by a member of the Scheduled Tribe unless previous consent in writing of the competent authority is obtained in that behalf. The said Regulation also provided that, in case of transfer of immovable property made in 'Contravention of the aforesaid restriction, the competent authority after giving opportunity of being heard to the person in possession of the property claiming under the transferror shall cause restoration of possession of such property to the transferor or his heirs. It also contained a provision for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of property, similar to the provision in Section 23-A of the O.L.R. Act. The restriction having thus been taken out of the Statute by virte of the repeal by Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956) no permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned was necessary to betaken after the Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 came into force on 21-9-1956. The restriction having thus been taken out of the Statute by virte of the repeal by Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956) no permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned was necessary to betaken after the Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 came into force on 21-9-1956. Section 7(b) of the Act of 1950 as it stood after the repeal did not require any permission for transfer of an immovable property by member of an aboriginal tribe to a member of non-aboriginal tribe. Such restriction contained in Regulation 2 of 1956 came into force with effect from 21-9-1956 If prior permission was required to be taken under the slid Regulation, the transferee may be liable to be proceeded u/s 3 or Section 3-A of she said Regulation and not under any of the provisions of the O.L.R. Act. Nothing has been shown by the learned Counsel appearing for the opp. Parties that the restriction originally contained in Section 7(13) of the Act of 1950 was in force on the date of the transfer in question in the year 1963, and therefore, the entire basis of the Revenue Officer as well as that of the appellate and revisional authorities appears to be non-existent. Consequently, the conclusion is irresistible that the transferee under the aforesaid sale deed or his legal heirs cannot be said to be in unauthorised occupation within the meaning of Section 23-A of the O.L.R. Act because of non-compliance of requirements of Section 7(b) of the Act of 1950, as stated in the impugned orders. 6. The next question for consideration is as to whether the transfer is hit by the provisions of Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 and whether a transferee in contravention of Section 3 of the Regulation can be proceeded u/s 23 or 23-A of the O.L.R. Act. Section 3 of the Regulation provides that any transfer of immovable property situated within a scheduled area by a member of the Scheduled Tribe shall be absolutely null and void and of no force or effect whatsoever unless made in favour of another member of a scheduled Tribe or with previous consent in writing of the Coefficient authority. The expression "scheduled 'area" as it stood in the aforesaid Regulation before its amendment by Regulation 1 of 1379 was defined to mean "scheduled areas specified in respect of the State of Orissa in the Scheduled Areas Part A States) Order, 1950". The expression "scheduled 'area" as it stood in the aforesaid Regulation before its amendment by Regulation 1 of 1379 was defined to mean "scheduled areas specified in respect of the State of Orissa in the Scheduled Areas Part A States) Order, 1950". It has not been shown to us nor there is anything on record to show that the land in question was situated within the scheduled area as defined in the Regulation. It is, therefore, not possible to reach a conclusion that the alienation in question was in contravention of Section 3 of Regulation 2 of 1956. Similar is the petition with respect to Section 3-A of the Regulation which provides that where a person is found to be in unauthorised occupation of any immovable property of a member of the Scheduled Tribe by way of trespass or otherwise, the competent authority may, either on application by the owner or any person interested therein, or on his own mention, and after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, order ejectment of the person so found to-be in unauthorised occupation and shall cause restoration of possession of such property to the said member of the Scheduled Tribe or to his heirs. Strictly speaking, we are not called upon to decide in this case as to whether the transferee comes within the mischief of Section 3 or' Section 3-A of the Regulation 2 of 1956 and we refrain from expressing any view as to whether or not a proceeding, if initiated u/s 3 or Section 3-A of the said Regulation, would be maintainable. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the proceeding u/s 23-A of the O.L.R. Act was not competent. This is so on the assumption that there was no restriction for transfer of the land by "the father of the opp. Parties in favour of the father of the Petitioners in the year 1963 and, therefore, the title to the property validly passed on to the transferee by virtue of the registered sale deed and it follows that the possession of the transferee was with authority and not unauthorised. 7. Parties in favour of the father of the Petitioners in the year 1963 and, therefore, the title to the property validly passed on to the transferee by virtue of the registered sale deed and it follows that the possession of the transferee was with authority and not unauthorised. 7. We may proceed further to analyses as to whether the proceeding u/s 23-A of the O.L.R. Act against the Petitioners would succeed assuming for the sake of argument that the Petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the land within the meaning of Section 23-A of the O.L.R. Act. The expression "adverse possession" means "hostile possession", that is a possession which expressly or impliedly is in denial of the title of the true owner. Assuming that the transfer was invalid on account of any restriction spelt out in any law, the possession of the transferee becomes adverse from the date of the transfer as his possession is not reconcilable with the rights of the true owner. If such state of affairs continues for 12 years, he shall not be evictable by the true owner as per the general law of limitation which shortly stated is acquisition of title by adverse possession. A contention was raised on behalf of the opp. Parties that Section 23-B has amended the law of limitation in its application to proceedings u/s 23 of the O.L.R. Act by providing that after the words "twelve years" occurring in second column against Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the words brackets and figures "but thirty years in the case of immovable property belong to a member of a scheduled tribe or a scheduled caste, specified in relation to the State of Orissa in the Constitution (the Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 or the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 as the case may be" shall be inserted. The aforesaid amendment introducing Section 23-B in the O.L.R. Act was by Act 44 of 1976 which came into force with effect from 15-10-1-(sic) by which date the period of 12 years had been completed from the date of transfer. Introduction of Section 23-B in the year 1976 cannot have the effect of depriving persons of their vested rights already acquired by them by the date of amendment. Introduction of Section 23-B in the year 1976 cannot have the effect of depriving persons of their vested rights already acquired by them by the date of amendment. Thus assuming that the amendment of limitation Act in Section 23-B applies to cases u/s 23A the extended period of limitation will not apply to the transaction in question. That apart the language of Section 23-B, Sub-section (2) makes it amply clear that it has no application to a proceeding u/s 23-A as it specifically provides that the change of limitation would be in respect of a proceeding u/s 23 of the O.L.R. Act. A Bench of this Court in a decision reported in Siani Nag Vs. Gobardhan Ganda and Others, took the same view. 8. In view of what has been held by us with relation to the first two points, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the third point, namely, as to whether the proceeding u/s 23-A of the O.L.R. Act would be maintainable in respect of the land situated within the municipal area. 9. We, however, express no opinion as to whether the impugned transfer would be hit by any of the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1956. It would be open to the authorities empowered in that behalf to take action under the Regulation, if the same is applicable. Any such proceeding, if initiated, would be decided on its own merits. 10. In the result, the writ application succeeds and the orders in Annexures-5, 6 and 7 are quashed In the facts and circumstances of the case, we however make no order as to costs. B.L. Hansaria, C.J 11. I agree. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed