D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE first appeal and the writ application were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are the appellants in the first appeal and they have been arrayed as opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in the Writ application. The suit was one for partition of schedule 'a' lands and for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of schedule 'b' lands which is a part of schedule 'a' lands. Schedule 'b' comprises of 5. 09 acres. The plaintiffs' case in nutshell is that Cheranga Bhoi, the common ancestor, had five sons - Buti, Kapurchand, Sukhedhar, Khuda and Kaliabutu. Kapurchand and Sukhedhar died issueless. Khadu died leaving behind his widow, Khira who is plaintiff No. 5. Khadu had five sons of whom two sons have been arrayed as plaintiffs 3 and 4 and three sons have been arrayed as defendants 3, 4 and 5. Kandhana, plaintiff No. 1 is the pre-deceased son's son of Khuda. Kaliabutu died leaving behind his widow, plaintiff No. 6 and his son, plaintiff No. 2. So far as Buti's branch is concerned, the plaint allegation was that Ganapati, grand-son of Buti was unheard of for the last 15 years and accordingly he met a civil death and so was not arrayed as a party to the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that schedule 'a' lands which includes schedule 'b' is, therefore, the joint family ancestral lands. It was their further case that on 26-3-1965 defendants 3 to 5, Guman, father of plaintiff No. 1 and Kaliabutu, father of plaintiff No. 2 sold the 'b' schedule lands to defendants 1 and 2 without any legal necessity and without the knowledge and consent of co-sharers who were in joint possession of the same. It was their further case that plaintiffs 3 and 4 had attained majority on the date of the sale but yet, they were fraudulently declared to be minors. Further defendants 3 to 5, Guman and Kaliabutu were illiterate persons and defendants 1 and 2 who were influential and rich people, exercised undue influence over their venders and got the sale-deed executed in their favour in respect of 'b' schedule lands without paying any consideration therefor. Further defendants 3 to 5, Guman and Kaliabutu were illiterate persons and defendants 1 and 2 who were influential and rich people, exercised undue influence over their venders and got the sale-deed executed in their favour in respect of 'b' schedule lands without paying any consideration therefor. According to the plaint case, the sale is void and as it was a sale by members belonging to the Scheduled Tribe in favour of persons not belonging to the members of Scheduled Tribe without any previous permission of the competent revenue authority. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 remained in unauthorised possession of schedule 'b' lands till 1975 but they were dispossessed by the plaintiffs in 1975 and thereafter though defendants 1 and 2 tried to take possession of the land but failed in their attempt and since the sale is void, the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of their title and recovery of possession so far as the 'b' schedule lands are concerned. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the entire 'b' schedule lands is the joint ancestral property and the same is liable to be partitioned. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 3 to 5 remained ex parte. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. According to them, the suit is bad for non-joinder of Ganapati representing Buti's branch. They also denied the allegation that plaintiffs 3 and 4 had attained majority by the time of the sale transaction. They also denied the allegation of exercise of undue influence by them as well as the allegation of non-payment of consideration. So far as permission of the competent revenue authority is concerned, it is the case of defendants 1 and 2 that defendant No. 3 and others applied for permission before the Sub-Divisional Officer who granted permission for sale on 14-4-1965 and such permission would relate back to the date of filing of application seeking permission and consequentially there is no infirmity in the same. According to them, plaintiffs have never possessed the 'b' schedule lands in the year 1975 as alleged and the said 'b' schedule lands are not liable to be partitioned as defendants 1 and 2 have acquired valid title and the continuing in possession of the same. According to them, plaintiffs have never possessed the 'b' schedule lands in the year 1975 as alleged and the said 'b' schedule lands are not liable to be partitioned as defendants 1 and 2 have acquired valid title and the continuing in possession of the same. On these pleadings, six issues were struck of which issue No. 5 was to the effect, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the suit lands and if so, what is their share? But in course of hearing, as the plaintiffs' advocate filed a memo intimating that the plaintiffs abandon their claim of partition, the said issues did not arise for consideration. On issue No. 1, the learned trial Judge came to hold that the suit is maintainable and S. 23a of the Orissa Land Reforms Act has no application as the said provision came into force subsequent to the filing of the suit. So far as the validity of the sale-deed is concerned, the learned trial Judge found the same to be invalid as there was no prior permission of the competent authority as required under the provisions of the Orissa Merged States Laws Act. On the question of minority of the plaintiffs 3 and 4 on the date of sale, the trial Judge found that they were minors at the time of sale transaction. On the question of passing of consideration, the trial Court found that consideration did pass under the sale-deed in question. So far as the existence of legal necessity is concerned, the trial Court found that there was no legal necessity but did not further delve into the matter, as the sale was held by him to be invalid one in the absence of previous sanction of the Sub-Divisional Officer. So far as the question of exercise of undue influence is concerned, no finding was arrived at as the plaintiffs did not press the issue. Similarly, the defendants did not press the issue of non-maintainability of the suit in the absence of Ganapati. On these findings the suit was decreed and the title of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 in respect of 'b' schedule lands was declared and decree for recovery of possession was also granted. It is against this decree, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred the appeal which was registered as F. A. 457/1977. On these findings the suit was decreed and the title of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 in respect of 'b' schedule lands was declared and decree for recovery of possession was also granted. It is against this decree, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred the appeal which was registered as F. A. 457/1977. ( 4 ) AFTER the decree of the civil court, while the matter was pending in this Court in appeal, the petitioners of the writ application filed an application before the Revenue Officer, opposite party No. 3 invoking his jurisdiction under S. 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act alleging therein that opposite parties 1 and 2 are in unauthorised possession of the lands and their possession be restored. The Revenue Officer disposed of the said proceeding by order dated 17-8-78 on a finding that the occupation of the disputed lands by opposite parties 1 and 2 is unauthorised and, therefore, the possession should be restored to the petitioners under S. 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The said order of the Revenue Officer has been annexed as Annexure-2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 carried the matter in appeal which was registered as O. L. R. Appeal No. 22 of 1978. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The order of the appellate authority has been annexed as Annexure-3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 then carried the matter in revision which was registered as Revision Case No. 385/1982. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the O. L. R. authorities had no jurisdiction to invoke their power under S. 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and there may be conflict of orders. Therefore, he set aside the orders of the lower courts and allowed the revision which order has been annexed as Annexure-4. The petitioners, therefore, have filed the writ application seeking the relief that the order under Annexure-4 be quashed. ( 5 ) IN course of hearing of the first appeal as well the writ application, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ application fairly stated that the subsequent O. L. R. proceeding had been initiated only by way of ex abundanti cautela. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the decision of the first appeal will really governed the rights of the parties. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the decision of the first appeal will really governed the rights of the parties. We would, therefore, examine the first appeal at the first instance. Mr. Das, appearing for the appellants in the first appeal did not assail the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge. The sole contention urged by Mr. Das for the appellants, however, was that the civil court will have no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for in view of S. 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act inasmuch as the relief in question would be one coming within the ambit of S. 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Mr. S. Misra-2, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents, on the other hand, contended that S. 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act being prospective in nature and having come into force by Orissa Act 44 of 1976, the pending suit for the relief of recovery of possession cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, S. 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act will have no application. A reading of the plaint would indicate that the plaintiffs challenged the validity of the sale-deed executed by defendants 3 to 5 along with other co-sharers in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on several grounds including the ground of absence of prior permission of the competent authority under the provisions of the Orissa Merged States Laws Act. Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court when the suit relates to any matter which a Revenue Officer or other competent authority under the O. L. R. Act is empowered to decide. The suit in question had been filed much prior to the coming into force of Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Section 23-A is undoubtedly prospective in nature and has no retrospective application. The sale-deed in question had been executed even prior to the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms Act itself. The relief sought for in the plaint, mainly to related to declare the sale-deed executed by defendants 3 to 5 along with other co-sharers in favour of defendants 1 and 2 as invalid and inoperative and cannot be granted by the Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Orissa Reforms Act. The relief sought for in the plaint, mainly to related to declare the sale-deed executed by defendants 3 to 5 along with other co-sharers in favour of defendants 1 and 2 as invalid and inoperative and cannot be granted by the Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Orissa Reforms Act. Therefore, apart from the fact that S. 23a came into the statute book after the filing of the civil suit with the prayer for recovery of possession and thereby will not affect the pending suit since it is of prospective nature, even the relief sought for could not have been granted by the Revenue Officer and consequently S. 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act will not stand as a bar nor will it oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Das, appearing for the appellants, that the decision of the Civil Court is one without jurisdiction. The said contention must, accordingly, be rejected. So far as the other findings of the learned trial Judge are concerned, the same have not been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants and are, accordingly, confirmed. As a necessary consequence, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge remain unassailable and are accordingly affirmed and the first appeal has to be dismissed being devoid of merit. ( 6 ) COMING to the revisional order in the proceeding arising out of the application filed by the petitioners under S. 23a of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, we have no hesitation to conclude that the proceeding is wholly misconceived. The plaintiffs had assailed the validity of the sale-deed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 before the Civil Court and had obtained a decree for recovery of possession. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court there was no justification on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 to move the revenue authority under S. 23a of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs, therefore, can execute their right obtained by them under the decree for recovery of possession in the Civil Court itself. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, filing of an application before the revenue officer under S. 23a of the Orissa Land Reforms Act by the petitioners 1 and 2 is wholly misconceived. The plaintiffs, therefore, can execute their right obtained by them under the decree for recovery of possession in the Civil Court itself. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, filing of an application before the revenue officer under S. 23a of the Orissa Land Reforms Act by the petitioners 1 and 2 is wholly misconceived. We would accordingly quash the revisional order under Annexure 4 as well as orders passed by the appellate authority under Annexure 3 and the order passed by the Revenue Officer under Annexure 2 and we quash the O. L. R. proceeding as being wholly misconceived. ( 7 ) IN the net result, therefore, the first appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge are confirmed. The writ application is disposed of with the observation that the proceeding under S. 23a of the Orissa Land Reforms Act was wholly misconceived and consequently the orders passed by the revenue authorities under Annexures 2, 3 and 4 are hereby quashed. ( 8 ) G. B. PATNAIK, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly.