JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - These two Civil Revisions arise out of the common order of temporary injunction against Petitioners with consent of parties, both the Civil Revisions were heard together and are disposed of finally in this order. 2. Dispute in the suit relates to two shoprooms and the land over which it stands. Suit is for permanent injunction restraining Defendants from disturbing the Plaintiff in his possession. In the suit two petitions were filed for temporary injunction. 3. In the plaint, it is asserted that the two rooms stand on a Government land where Plaintiff runs a Hotel since 1947. He has dug tube well and has taken electric connection. For running the business, Plaintiff has been registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, as a dealer. By long possession, Plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession. It is adjacent to the daily market. For construction of a market complex, the land has been transferred by the State Government to Cuttack Development Authority constituted under the Orissa Town Development Act. Cuttack Development Authority started a proceeding and has directed Plaintiff to demolish the two shoprooms. Such order has been set aside by the appellate authority who remanded the matter back. 4. Petitioners contested the application for temporary injunction on the ground that suit is barred under provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act and the Orissa Development Authority Act. 5. Trial Court found that Plaintiff's case suffers from several infirmities. Prima facie case and balance of convenience are not in favour of the Plaintiff. So finding it passed the order: Both these Misc. cases are dismissed on contest against the opposite parties without cost, having no merits. However, the opposite parties are directed not to demolish the suit shop-room of the Petitioner and the Petitioner is restrained not to make any further construction over the suit land till disposal of T.S. No. 68/81. This direction is issued u/s 151, CPC for preservation of the suit land and for the betterment of the parties. Both parties are also requested to cooperate for early disposal of the suit. 6. Mr. This direction is issued u/s 151, CPC for preservation of the suit land and for the betterment of the parties. Both parties are also requested to cooperate for early disposal of the suit. 6. Mr. A.S. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the requirements of Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, having been held not be satisfied in the present case, there was no scope for exercising inherent powers u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, specially when the Petitioners (Defendant Nos. 3 and 4) are statutory authorities and by order of temporary injunction, trial Court in effect has restrained Petitioners from exercising their statutory power. Mr. A.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff on the other hand submitted that Court has inherent power to grant temporary injunction in cases where the requirements of Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, are not satisfied but interest of justice would demand the same to protect a party. 7. Chairman and the Secretary of the Cuttack Development Authority constituted under the Orissa Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Tahasildar are to exercise statutory powers under the Orissa Development Authority Act and Orissa Prevention of land Encroachment Act. Remedies have been provided to an aggrieved person under those statutes. Basides, suit is specifically barred under both the statutes. In such circumstances, Civil Court is not to exercise inherent power which would have the effect of administration of the statute by statutory authorities. While passing the order, tried Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. In each circumstances, trial Court exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity. Accordingly, impugned order is vacated. 8. Admittedly, Plaintiff is in possession of the shop-rooms. Statutory authorities are to exercise power as vested in them and in the manner as provided under statute. Section ILR (1977) Cutt. Naresh Chandra Tripathy v. Revenue Officer Angul. No Court can restrain the statutory authority from exercising the statutory power unless the litigation is in respect of the validity of a statute or the validity of actions which can be questioned in a Civil Court in the light of decision of the Full Bench in ILR 1975 Cut. 789 Mangulu Jal and Ors. v. Bhagaban Rai and Ors. In 1972 (I) C.W.R. 896 Padma Lochan Mohapatra v. Collector Mayurbhanj and Anr. 789 Mangulu Jal and Ors. v. Bhagaban Rai and Ors. In 1972 (I) C.W.R. 896 Padma Lochan Mohapatra v. Collector Mayurbhanj and Anr. it has been observed: ...The Petitioner has admittedly been on the property for quite a long time legal position is well settled that a person in possession particularly under some colour of title should not be forced out by taking the law into one's own hand. It is particularly so when the State with its mighty power comes to deal with a citizen.... When Plaintiff approached the Court for protection against highhanded action of statutory authorities, Civil Court while considering the application for temporary injunction can look into the orders authorising the authorities to evict a person. In such cases, it cannot sit in appeal against the orders. Where it finds that some procedure has not been followed, it can direct the authorities to follow the said procedure if by not following the said procedure Plaintiff is prejudiced for which he has no other remedy. 9. The suit is of the year 1981, which is pending since last eight years. Both parties assure me that they would cooperate for early disposal of the suit. Accordingly, I direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit in the year 1990 itself. 10. In the result, Civil Revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above. No costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed