JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The Petitioner is a non-Scheduled Caste person and purchased the disputed land measuring 50 decimals appertaining to plot No. 399 en 16-4-1968 by means of a registered sale deed, from opposite party No. 4 who is a Scheduled Caste man. The said opposite party No. 4 had made an application to the Revenue Officer for permission to transfer the land on 7-2-1968. The Revenue Officer gave permission for transfer on 9-5-1968. Though the registered deed was executed on 16-4-1968, but only a part of the consideration had been paid and the full consideration money was paid on 10-5-1968 and possession was delivered. Opposite party No. 4 made an application on 23-6-1978 long ten years after alleging that there was no prior permission on the date when the registered deed was executed and, therefore, the transfer in question is void u/s 22 of the Orissa land Reforms Act. The Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that the transfer made on 16-4-1968 by virtue of the registered sale deed having been made without the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer, the transfer was void and he accordingly declared the transfer to be invalid and directed that the transferee should pay a penalty of Rs. 100/- and should hand over possession of the land within thirty days from the date of the order. The said order of the Revenue Officer has been annexed as Annexure-2. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the same carried an appeal which was registered as O.L.R. Appeal No. 214 of 1978. The Additional District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the tenure in question had not been converted to a raiyati status on the date the transfer was made and, therefore, Section 22 and 23 of the Orissa Land Reform, Act would have no application. He also came to the conclusion that the transfer must be held to have been effected on 10-5-1968 by which date the required permission u/s 22(1)(b) had been there in writing and therefore, the transfer could not be said to be invalid. He accordingly set aside the order of the Revenue Officer. The order of the appellate authority has been annexed as Annexure-3. Opposite party No. 4 carried a revision which was heard and disposed of by the Special Officer, land Reforms. He accordingly set aside the order of the Revenue Officer. The order of the appellate authority has been annexed as Annexure-3. Opposite party No. 4 carried a revision which was heard and disposed of by the Special Officer, land Reforms. The said revisional authority came to the conclusion that the sale effected on 16-4-1968 was clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and accordingly the said sale must be held to be null and void. She, therefore, set aside the appellate order but directed that no penalty as ordered by the Revenue Officer should be levied. The order of the revisional authority has been annexed as Annexure-4. The Petitioner has thereafter approached this Court. 2. Two questions have been urged by Mr. Section Misra-2, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in assailing the revisional order of the Special Officer: (i) The restriction provided in Section 22 of the Orissa land Reforms Act will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the title to the land here has passed on 10-5-1968 by which time the Revenue Officer had given the written permission; and (ii) The land on the date of alleged transfer not having acquired the raiyati status the provisions of Section 22 of the Act will have no application. Mr. Kar, the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4, on the other hand, contends that in view of the language used in Section 22 of the Orissa lad Reforms Act the sale deed having been executed on 16-4-1968 without the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer must be held to be void and, therefore, the provisions of Section 22 will apply. He further contends that admittedly opp. party No. 4 being a raiyat and in view of the definition of holding' in Section 2(11) the restrictions contained in Section 22 will apply and, therefore, the revisional authority was justified in annulling the transfer. 3. The rival contentions require a careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. But before examining the same, it would be appropriate to notice the admitted facts. The land in question was Devottur Bajyapti. Opp. 3. The rival contentions require a careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. But before examining the same, it would be appropriate to notice the admitted facts. The land in question was Devottur Bajyapti. Opp. party No. 4 made an application for permission on 7-2-1968, executed the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner on 16-4-1968 and the written permission of the Revenue Officer was received on 9-5-1968.Thereafter the consideration money under the sale deed was paid on 10-5-1968 and possession was delivered to the Petitioner. 4. To appreciate the points involved, it would be appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 22(1) and Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act in extenso: 22. Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes- (1) Any transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe Shall be void except where it is in favour of. (a) a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe; or (b) a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe when such transfer is made with the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer; Provided that in case of a transfer by sale the Revenue Officer shall not grant such permission unless he is satisfied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe willing to pay the market price for the land is not available, and in case of a gift unless he is satisfied about the bona fides thereof. 23. Effect of transfer in contravention of Section 22 (1) In the case of any transfer in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 the Revenue Officer on his own information, or on the application of any person interested in the land may issue notice in the prescribed manner calling upon the transfer and transferee to show cause why the transfer should not be declared invalid. (2) After holding such inquiry as the Revenue Officer deems fit and after hearing the persons interested, he may declare such transfer to be invalid and impose on the transferee a penalty of an amount not exceeding two hundred rupees per acre of the land so transferred for each year or any part thereof during which the possession is continued in pursuance of the transfer which has been declared to be invalid and may also order such portion of the penlty as he deems fit, to be paid to the transfer or his heir. (3) On a declaration being made under Sub-section (2) the Revenue Officer suo motu or on the application of any person interested cause restoration of the property to the transferor his heirs and for the purpose may take such steps as may be necessary for compliance with the said order or preventing any breach of peace: Provided that if the Revenue Officer is of the opinion that the restoration of the property is not reasonably practicable shall record his reasons there for and shall, subject to the control of the Government settle the said property with another member of a Scheduled Tribe or in the absence of any such member, with any other person in accordance with the provisions contained in the Orissa Government land Settlement Act, 1962 (33 of 1962). Explanation - Restoration of the property means actual delivery of possession of the property to the transferor or his heir. (4) Where any transfer is declared under this section to be invalid and the transferee or any other person in possession of the property has been evicted there from the transferee shall not be entitled to the refund of any amount paid by him to the transferor by way of consideration for the transfer. The aforesaid provisions make the transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a non-Scheduled Tribe person void when such transfer is made without previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer. In view of Sub-section (5) of Section 22, the said provisions mutatis mutandis apply to transfer of a holding by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Caste. u/s 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, transfer in case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument. In view of Sub-section (5) of Section 22, the said provisions mutatis mutandis apply to transfer of a holding by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Caste. u/s 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, transfer in case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument. Therefore, executing a sale deed at a point of time when there was no prior permission in writing of the Revenue Officer would be void u/s 22 of the Act. The subsequent permission cannot legalise a deed which was void. The intention of the legislature is apparent from Sub-section (4) of Section 22 where under there is an embargo on the power of the registering officer to register any such document unless the document is accompanied by the written permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer. In this view of the matter, and admittedly there being no written permission of the Revenue Officer on 16-4-1968 when opp. party No. 4 executed the registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioner, the said sale deed is invalid and the revisional authority, rightly came to the conclusion and annulled the transfer in question. The submission of Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on this score must be rejected. 5. So far as the second submission is concerned, there is no doubt that the Act applies to a transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe or a Scheduled Caste and the definition of holding' in Section 2(11) means a parcel or parcels of land forming the subject of a separate tanancy. But there is no material on record to come to a conclusion that the disputed land did not form the subject-matter of tenancy of said opp. party. No. 4. The Record-of-Rights of the year 1976 on which Mr. Misra relies cannot form the basis of a conclusion. In that view of the matter, Mr. Misra's second contention also must fail and is accordingly rejected. 6. Both the contentions having failed the writ application fails and is dismissed, but in view of the admitted facts that opp. party. No. 4. The Record-of-Rights of the year 1976 on which Mr. Misra relies cannot form the basis of a conclusion. In that view of the matter, Mr. Misra's second contention also must fail and is accordingly rejected. 6. Both the contentions having failed the writ application fails and is dismissed, but in view of the admitted facts that opp. party No. 4 has received the consideration money, in the interests of justice we direct that the said consideration money must be paid to the Petitioner and until such payment is made, the Petitioner shall continue to remain in possession of the land. On the refund of the consideration money the Petitioner must deliver back the possession to opp. party No. 4 as directed by the revenue authorities. We make no order as to costs. J.M. Mahapatra, J. 7. I agree. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed