JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In these two writ cases, common questions of fact and law are involved. So, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both parties, they are disposed of by this judgment. None of the opposite parties filed counter. 2. The Petitioners belong to Kaibarta caste. Opposite party No. 4 is Tanla by caste which is recognised as a scheduled caste by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. According to the Petitioners in both the cases opposite party No. 4 executed and registered deeds of contract for sale in their favour in the year 1975 in respect of different parcels of lands and on receipt of part of the consideration for the transactions delivered possession of the lands in their favour. It was agreed that he would execute and register the sale deeds within a period of six months, but it was not done. So, the Petitioners have been continuing in peaceful possession of the lands. Opposite party No. 4 instituted two cases u/s 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') stating therein that although he belongs to the scheduled caste, the Petitioners though Kaibarta by caste do not belong to scheduled caste category. They obtained fraudulent sale deeds in their favour in the year 1975 without obtaining permission from the competent Revenue Officer and have been in possession of the lands unauthorisedly. So, he prayed for declaration that the sale transactions in favour of the Petitioners should be declared as void. The Revenue Officer (opposite party No. 3) by order dated 4-11-1982 dismissed both the cases holding that Kaibartas belong to scheduled caste category according to the decision of this Court reported in Narayan Behera Vs. State of Orissa and Others which was upheld by the Supreme Court, and so transfer of land by a person of a scheduled caste in favour of persons of another scheduled caste was not void. Against the order passed by opposite party No. 3, opposite party No. 4 carried appeals before opposite party No. 2 who took the view that people belonging to Kaibarta caste should be treated as belonging to scheduled caste with effect from 5-11-1979, the date on which the judgment of this High Court was rendered. Against the order passed by opposite party No. 3, opposite party No. 4 carried appeals before opposite party No. 2 who took the view that people belonging to Kaibarta caste should be treated as belonging to scheduled caste with effect from 5-11-1979, the date on which the judgment of this High Court was rendered. Prior to that date people of Kaibarta caste did not belong to scheduled caste and as the transactions were made in the year 1975, there was manifest contravention of Section 22 of the Act. Accordingly, he remitted the cases on merits in accordance with the instructions of the Government in Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department. After remand, opposite party No. 3 passed the impugned orders (Annexure-2) in which he held that the transactions were void for contravention of Section 22 of the Act, inasmuch as the Petitioners though belong to Kaibarta caste did not belong to scheduled caste prior to 5-11-197), the date the High Court passed the judgment, as clarified by Circular No. 17659 dated 20-7-1981. Accordingly, he declared the transactions in favour of both the Petitioners void. 3. Mr. J. K. Rath, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, strenuously urged that no instructions were given by the Government in Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department to the effect that people belonging to the Kaibarta community were treated as scheduled caste with effect from 5-11-1979. On the other hand, in view of the clear observations of this Court in the case of Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa through Secretary, Tribal and Welfare Department and Ors. (supra) people of Kaibarta caste shall be deemed to belong to the scheduled caste from the very day the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976, came into operation. 4. In the case of Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa through Secretary, Tribal and Welfare Department and Ors. (supra) this Court held as follows: .... Adopting the substance of the ratio, it should follow that when there is no community known as Dhibara as such and Dhibara essentially refers to a profession, Kaibartas and Keutas who are traditionally accepted to belong to Dhibara profession should be taken as included in the term Dhibara. (supra) this Court held as follows: .... Adopting the substance of the ratio, it should follow that when there is no community known as Dhibara as such and Dhibara essentially refers to a profession, Kaibartas and Keutas who are traditionally accepted to belong to Dhibara profession should be taken as included in the term Dhibara. In view of the aforesaid observation, it would but be reasonable to hold that ever since entry No. 24-Dewar was made in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, Kaibarta belonging to Dhibara profession were in fact Dewars and as such belonged to one of the scheduled castes. Decision of this Court was upheld in SLP (Civil) No. 1900 of 1980. The circular of the Government in Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department contained in Memo. No. 17659 dated 20-7-1981 was not available, but the letter containing Memo. No. 17660 dated 20-7-1981 is available at page 100 of the Orissa Scheduled Castes and Scheduled- Tribes Manual, by K. Muduli. We think both the letters are one and the same. The former was perhaps issued to the revenue authorities and the one now under reference was issued to the Director in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. If the letter is read, it does not appear that the Government gave instructions to the departments that Kaibartas should be treated as belonging to the scheduled caste with effect from the date of the judgment -in the case of Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa through Secretary, Tribal and Welfare Department and Ors. (supra), i. e. 5-11-1979. Therefore, the observation made to the above effect by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in their respective orders were not correct. According to Sub-section (5) read with Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act, any transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a scheduled caste shall be void except where it is in favour of a person belonging to a scheduled caste or a person not belonging to a schedule caste when such transfer is made with previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer. Patently, no permission of the competent Revenue Officer was obtained in the year 1975. But according to the admission of opposite party No. 4 himself in Annexure-1, the sales of 'different parcels of raiyati lands belonging to him in favour of the Petitioners were fraudulent. Patently, no permission of the competent Revenue Officer was obtained in the year 1975. But according to the admission of opposite party No. 4 himself in Annexure-1, the sales of 'different parcels of raiyati lands belonging to him in favour of the Petitioners were fraudulent. So, on his own showing, transfer between persons belonging to scheduled castes inter se cannot be declare void and the petitions made by him u/s 22 of the Act are strictly not maintainable. 5. There cannot, however, be an end to the cases because of the averments made by the Petitioners themselves in their writ petitions. They stated, that the transactions were not transfers of lands by way of sales out and out, but, on the other hand, opposite party No. 4 executed and registered deeds of contract for sale and simultaneously delivered possession of the lands. The documents are not before the Court. Witnesses do not seem to have been examined. So, the real nature of the transactions between the parties is not known. If the transactions were out and out sales, the petitions u/s 22 of the Act shall be liable to be rejected in limine. If in the other hand, registered deeds of contract for sale of different parcels of lands were executed by opposite party No. 4 in favour of the Petitioners accompanied by delivery of possession of the lands and the Petitioners have not instituted suits for specific performance of contracts for sale within the prescribed period of limitation, then they may not have any right to retain possession of the lands, for which recourse has to be taken under the common law in the Civil Court. In that event also, the revenue Court may have no jurisdiction u/s 22 of the Act to interfere. These aspects require thorough examination, for which we consider it appropriate to remit the cases to opposite-party No. 3. 6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders, Annexure-2 in both the writ cases, are quashed. O. L. R. Case Nos. 9 and 12 of 1982 are remitted to the Court of opposite party No. 3 for disposal according to law in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall bear their own costs. J.M. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.