JUDGMENT : B.N. Dash, J. - This writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of a proceeding u/s 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Janmejaya Majhi (opp. party No. 4) claiming himself to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe filed an application before the Revenue Officer, Titilagarh u/s 23-A of the Act for restoration-of possession of Ac. 0, 93 decimals of land in plot Nos. 345 and 348 of village Binakala, P. S. Titilagarh on the allegation that the petitioner belonging to a non-Scheduled Tribe purchased that land from him by a registered sale deed dated 10-1-1965 without obtaining prior permission in writing of the competent authority. The petitioners did not dispute that he belonged to a non-Scheduled Tribe and that opposite party No. 4 was a member of the Scheduled tribe. However, he pleaded that by executing the registered sale deed dated 10-1-1965 the opp. party No. 4 merely ratified his former sale on 1-4-1956 when possession of the land was delivered to him and over since 1955 he being in possession of the land coutinuously asserting title in himself, he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession and therefore, the application for restoration of possession and therefore, the application for restoration of possession was barred by limitation. The Revenue Officer, by order dated 18-9-1986 annexed to the writ application as Annexure-1, came to hold that there was lack of evidence showing transfer of the land in 1955 but he believed the possession of the petitioner from 10-1 -1965 when the registered sale deed was executed by opp. party No. 4. Although the transfer had been made without any prior permission in writing of the competent authority, he refused to restore possession of the land to the opp, party No. 4 because, acccording to him, the petitioner had perfected his title by way of the adverse possession by remaining in possession of the land for more than twelve years. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Revenue Officer, the opp. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Revenue Officer, the opp. party No. 4 preferred OLR Appeal Case No. 76 of 1986 before the Additional District Magistrate (LR), Bolangir who, by order dated 29-5-1987 annexed to the writ application as Annexure-2, came to hold that u/s 7(b)(i) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950, no transfer of a holding from a member ot an aboriginal tribe to a member of non-aboriginal tribe shall be valid unless such transfer is made with the prior permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned and since in this case, the transfer had been made in contravention of such provision, he allowed the appeal by directing restoration of the land to opp. party No. 4 with the finding that the period of limitation as prescribed u/s 23-B of the Act had not expired. 4. Being aggrieved by such order of the Addl. District Magistrate (LR), the petitioner approached the District Collector, Bolanqir in OLR. Revision No. 12 of 1987 who, by order dated 22-7-1989 annexed to the writ application as Annexure-3, came to hold that in terms of Sec 23 B a vendee cannot claim acquisition of title by adverse possession unless he was remained in possession of the property for thirty years or more and since the petitioner had not remained in possession of the Land for such, period, he concurred with the finding of the Add, D.str,ct Magnate (LR) holding the petition to be not barred by time and accordingly he dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by ? order of the revisional authority, the petitioner has filed this writ apphcation asking for a writ of certiorari quashing Annexures 2 and 3 5. It is contended by Mr. Mishra, the teamed counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was In occupation of the land in question on the basis of a registered sale deed his. quite authorised inasmuch as for purchasing -any land from a the Scheduled Tribe prior perm ss,on of any authoritv in required to be taken under any law. His even,if the occupation of the land by the petitioner is held to unauthority sed for any reason, he could not be evicted therefrom having acquired title there over by adverse possession. According to the learned their counsel, both the appellate and the revisional authorities went wrong their findings that the application for restoration by the opp. His even,if the occupation of the land by the petitioner is held to unauthority sed for any reason, he could not be evicted therefrom having acquired title there over by adverse possession. According to the learned their counsel, both the appellate and the revisional authorities went wrong their findings that the application for restoration by the opp. party No. opp. party 4. was requred to be filed within thirty years under Sec 2 3 B(2) of the Act which prescribes such period of Limitation for filing u/s 23 thereof. Mr.Naidu appearing for the opp,. party N.4 on the other hand, submits that the occupation of the land by the petitioner is quite unauthorised since the registered sale deed dated 10-1.1965 had been obtained in contravention of Sec 7(b) Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 and on the basis of submission has contention is that the petitioner has been by the apppelate and the revisional authorities who u/s 23-B(2) of the Act the application for eviction to be filed within 30 years from the date of unauthorised occupation. In . view of these rival contention, the points that emerge for determination are ; (i) whether occupation of the land in question on basis of the registered sale deed dated 10-1-1965 is unauthorised.? (ii) whether the application for eviction under sec 23 A. of the Act was barred by time 6. u/s 23-A of the Act, if a person is found to be in unauthorised occupation of the whole or part of a holding of a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Caste or of a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe within any part of the State other than a Scheduled Area, by way of trespass or otherwise, he is liable to be evicted by the authority mentioned therein and the said authority has power to restore possession of the property to the said raiyat or to his heir in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 23. As already pointed out above, the. petitioner who is a non-Scheduled Tribe has occupied the land in question on the basis of a registered sale deer executed by the opp. party No. 4 who is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. As already pointed out above, the. petitioner who is a non-Scheduled Tribe has occupied the land in question on the basis of a registered sale deer executed by the opp. party No. 4 who is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The occupation of the petitioner being based on a registered sale deed, he can only be said to be in unauthorised occupation, if there is any prohibition in law for making such acquisition. Both the appellate and the revisional authorities, as already pointed out above, have held the occupation of the petitioner as unauthorised because the registered sale dead on the basis of which he claims occupation is invalid in law in view of Section 7(i)(b) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950. The said provision lays down that no transfer of a holding from a member of an aboriginal tribe to a member of a non -aboriginal tribe shall be valid unless such transfer is made with the previous permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned. In view of this legal position, the transfer in question becomes invalid in law and consequently the occupation of the land in question by the petitioner becomes unauthorised. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that by the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956), the provision contained in Section 7(i)(b) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 was repealed and as such, by the date of the execution of the sale deed in question, the prohibition contained in the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 was. not available to characterise the transfer as invalid. 7. Clause (9) of Regulation No. 2 deals with repeal. According to Clause (9)(1)(b). not available to characterise the transfer as invalid. 7. Clause (9) of Regulation No. 2 deals with repeal. According to Clause (9)(1)(b). on and from the date of commencement of this Regulation the following shall stand repealed, namely : "The enactments mentioned in column 2 of the Schedule to the extent specified in column 3 thereof in so far as the/ are in force in the Scheduled Areas." Column 2 of item No. 2 of the Schedule states about Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 and Column 3 which deals the extent of repeal says that the words ''subject to the restriction that no transfer of a holding from a member of an aboriginal Tribe to a member of a non-aboriginal Tribe shall be valid unless such transfer is made with the previous permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned" appering in item 1 of Clause (b) of Section 7 shall be omitted. When this extent of repeal is read in conjunction with Clause (9)(1 )(h), there remains no room for doubt that Section 7(1 )(b) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 came to be reasiled only for the Scheduled Areas as defined in the aforesaid regulation and not for all the merged States. Then, it is to be seen whether the land in question transferred was within any Scheduled Area as defined in Regulation No. 2 of 1956. The expression "Scheduled Areas" as it stood in the aforesaid Regulation prior to its amendment by Regulation No. 1 of 1979 was defined to mean "Scheduled Areas" specified in respect of the State of Orissa in the Scheduled Areas (Part A States) Order, 1950. The district of Bolangir within which the land transferred situates was not specified as one of the Scheduled Areas in the aforesaid Order of 1950. By Regulation 1 of 1979, the definition of "Scheduled Areas" was changed to include the areas specified in respect of the State of Orissa in "Scheduled Areas'' (States of Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) Order, 1977" and on a reference to the said Order of 1977, we find that in the said Order also the district of Bolangir had not been included. Therefore, the provision contained in v. 7(1)(b) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 was not repealed by Regulation No, 2 of 1956 so far as the district of Bolangir is concerned. 8. Therefore, the provision contained in v. 7(1)(b) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 was not repealed by Regulation No, 2 of 1956 so far as the district of Bolangir is concerned. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Bench decision of this Court in Anadi Mohanta (dead) and after him Kointa Mohanta and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, In that case the petitioners, who were not Scheduled Tribes purchased some landed properties by a registered sale deed dated 27-2-1964 from the opposite perty No. 5 who was a member of the Scheduled Tribe and both of them belonged to Keonjhar district and so also the land transferred. The opp. party filed an application u/s 23 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Champua who dismissed the same holding that by the date of the sale the Act had not come into operation. When appeal was preferred to the Addl District Magistrate, Keonjhar he came to hold that the transfer was invalid in view of the provision contained in Section 7(b) of the Orissa Merged Slates (Laws) Act, 1950 and as such, allowed the appeal directing restoration of the land to the opp. party No. 5. In revision, similar view was taken by the revisional authority and there- after the petitioners approached this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authori- ties, On a consideration of Section 7(b) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950; Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956 read with the definition of the expession "Scheduled Areas" in the Scheduled Areas (Part A States) Order, 1950; Regulation No. 1 of 1979 and Scheduled Areas (States of Bihar, Gujarat, Madhaya Pradesh and Orissa) Order, 1377 it has been held : "......Therefore the restrictions on transfer by a member of aboriginal Tribe to a non-aboriginal Tribe which was originally there in the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 was lifted by repeal of the said provision in the year 1956 by Regulation 2 of 1956 and during the time when the transfers in question took place, there was no bar in taw requiring permission of any authority as a condition precedent. No other provision of law has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties which imposed a restriction for such transfers during the relevant period of the lands situated in the district of Keonjhar. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the transfers effected by opposite party No. 5 and his brothers in favour of the petitioners in the year 1964 was not hit by any bar of law and therefore, the possession of the transferees cannot be unauthorised within the meaning of Section 23-A of the Act." By this finding the Hon'ble Judge have held that the prohibition contained in Sec, 7(b) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 has no application even to areas which were not "Scheduled Areas" in as defined in Regulation 2 of 1950. But we find that the Areas Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 has application throughout the merged States in the State of Orissa and Regulation 2 of 1956 has application only to the Scheduled Areas. In other words,baring the Scheduled Areas, the provision contained in the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 is applicable to the other Merged States of Orissa. Since Keonjhar District referred in the reported case and the Bolangir district were not within the Scheduled Areas, the provisions contained in the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 has application to those districts in the year 1965 when the transfer in the present case took place. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken in the aforesaid reported case. That being so, we hold that the transfer by opp. party No. 4 to the petitioner being in contravention of the provision contained in Sea. 7(1 );b) of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 is invalid and consequently the occupation of the land in question by the petitioner is unauthorised. 9. So far as the. second point is concerned, it is seen that the same has been concluded by a Bench of this Court in Butu Naik v. Anila Naikani and Anr., (1990) 32 OLR 416 (Civil). Therein, it has been held that the period of thirty years which is introduced In Art. 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by amendment under Sub-section (2) has no application to a proceeding u/s 23-A. In such a case, the period of limitation ig twelve year9 as provided under Art. 65. Therein, it has been held that the period of thirty years which is introduced In Art. 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by amendment under Sub-section (2) has no application to a proceeding u/s 23-A. In such a case, the period of limitation ig twelve year9 as provided under Art. 65. We respectfully agree with such view particularly when Section 23-B (2) of the Act clearly provides that the period of limitation prescribed therein will apply only to proceedings u/s 23 of the said Act. So, we hold that the application for restoration u/s 23-A, if the Act was barred by time, because admittedly after the transfer the petitioner was possessed the land in question for more than twelve years. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that although the transfer was invalid and consequently the occupation of the petitioner was unauthorised, he cannot be evicted from the land in question in view of his acquiring title by way of adverse possession in the application for restoration was barred by time. 11. In the result, the writ application is allowed by quashing the appellate and revisional orders as at Annexures-2 and 3 and restoring order of the Revenue authority under Annexure-1. G.B. Pattnaik, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Allowed