JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - Since common questions of law facts arise in both these two Writ Petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. In both the Writ Petition, challenge has been made by the Petitioners to the orders vide Annexures 6, 7 and 8 passed by Opposite Parties 1 to 3 in a proceeding under Sections 22 and 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioners' ancestor Kulamani Roul was the recorded tenant as per 1930 settlement, vide Annexure-1. Said Kulamani Roul while in possession executed a nominal deed in respect of the case land in favour of Nabei Mallik, the father of Opposite Party No. 4, without delivering the possession. The possession has been continuing with Kulamani Roul. However, to avoid future complication, it was agreed between the parties to execute a registered sale deed. Accordingly, Nabei Mallik executed two sale deeds i.e. one on 20th April, 1971 (registered sale deed No. 2875) and the other on 26.1 0.1970 (registered sale deed No. 6703) in favour of Bhabagrahi Roul and Basanta Manjari Dei, the Petitioners. While the matter stood thus, during the consolidation proceedings the parties did not file objection under Sections 9(1) and 9(3) of the Act but subsequently they rpreferred revision before the Director, Consolidation, Orissa. The Director, Consolidation remanded the matter to the lower Court and the lower Court rejected the application of the Petftioners to record them as owner of the land. Against that order, they preferred appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation. The Deputy Director, Consolidation held that the consolidation authority is not the competent authority to decide the validity of the sale deed as permission u/s 22(1) of the Act was not obtained. He held that the Appellants acquired title in respect of the disputed land purchased under an invalid sale deed and successfully proved their long possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years. As per Section 27 of the Limitation Act, since Nabei Mallik had not taken any step to recover the possession of the disputed land within the statutory period of limitation, the Deputy Director, Consolidation directed for correction of the land records in the name of Petitioners Bhabagrahi Roul and Basanta Manjari Mohapatra under Sthitiban status. As per Section 27 of the Limitation Act, since Nabei Mallik had not taken any step to recover the possession of the disputed land within the statutory period of limitation, the Deputy Director, Consolidation directed for correction of the land records in the name of Petitioners Bhabagrahi Roul and Basanta Manjari Mohapatra under Sthitiban status. In the meantime, Sudam Chandra Mallik, son of Nabei Mallik, filed two applications before the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act praying for cancellation of the sale deed and restoration of the land in his favour which were registered as Misc. Case Nos. 12 of 1994 and 13 of 1994. The Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur vide his Order Dated 24th August, 1996 held that the oral sales made by Nabei Mallik in the year 1953 in favour of Bhabagrahi Roul and in the year 1956 in favour of Basanta Manjari Dei are invalid as the valuation of the property was more than Rs. 1007- which requires for registration as there was a bar u/s 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. He further held that the OLR Act came into force in the year 1965. Section 22 of the said Act is mandatory in case any transaction of property is made between the Scheduled Castes and non Scheduled Caste persons and necessary permission has to be obtained from the competent authority. As the said permission was not obtained, the transaction was invalid. Section 22(b) of the Act came into force with effect from 2.10.1973 and the period of 12 years has been enhanced to 30 years. Therefore, adverse possession as claimed by the Opposite Parties does not cover 30 years. As such, no right, title and interest accrued in favour of the Opposite Parties by virtue of adverse possession and the sale deeds dated 20.4.1971 and 20.10.1970 were executed without taking permission as required u/s 22 of the Act. Therefore, he declared the said sale deeds invalid and directed the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur to restore the land in favour of legal heir of Nabei Mallik. Against the said order of the Sub-Collector, OLR Appeal Nos. 3of 1996 and 4 of 1996 were filed before the Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur. The Appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Collector. Against the said order the Petitioners filed OLR Revision u/s 59(2) to refer the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack. Against the said order of the Sub-Collector, OLR Appeal Nos. 3of 1996 and 4 of 1996 were filed before the Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur. The Appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Collector. Against the said order the Petitioners filed OLR Revision u/s 59(2) to refer the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack. The Commissioner held that this is not a fit case to refer the matter to the Board of Revenue as the Sub-Collector as well as the Addl. District Magistrate has passed the order in accordance with law. Against the said orders, Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions. 3. The main contention of the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that they are in possession of the property since 1930 and though the transfer through registered instrument took place in the years 1970 and 1971 they have perfected title by adverse possession. The order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation recording the names of the Petitioners in the ROR operates as res judicata. By that time the Revenue authorities did not consider that fact. 4. The Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 4, however, stated that since the Petitioners had not obtained necessary permission u/s 22 of the Act, prior to the registered sale deeds, the sale deeds executed by Nabei Mallik is invalid and his L.Rs are entitled to restoration of possession of the disputed property and both the revenue authorities have rightly directed for restoration of the possession and as there is no infirmity in the said order the impugned order should not be interfered with. 5. This Court on a verification of the record finds that the Petitioners have admitted the title of Nabei Mallik and to avoid future complication, they obtained registered sale deeds in the years 1970 and 1971 from Nabei Mallik admitting his title to the disputed property. 6. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Trilochan Dandsena and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Others, has held previous possession of a person of non-Scheduled Tribe who obtained an unregistered sale deed from a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and again got a registered sale deed after about five years without obtaining the required permission under the Orissa Land Reforms Act cannot be counted to claim interest in the land by adverse possession. It was observed by the Full Bench that Section 23-B of the Act was amended with effect from 2.10.1973. The vendee claimed adverse possession. By this Section, two changes are brought, i.e., (1) the period of 12 years contemplated by Article 65 of the Limitation Act has been enhanced to 30 years for the limited purpose of proceedings u/s 23 of the Act; and (2) burden to prove the transaction as valid is placed on the transferee. Getting the registered sale deed from owner on the ground that the first one was not in accordance with law clearly amounts to recognition of title of the real owner and results in the break in the running of time. The previous possession of land valued more than Rs. 100 was on the basis of an unregistered sale deed cannot be counted to claim interest in the land by adverse possession. 7. In view of the above Full Bench decision of this Court, the findings of fact reached by the Revenue authorities are reasonable and in accordance with law. The next question is whether the decision of the Consolidation authority will operate as res judicata? 8. In order to decide the question whether a subsequent proceeding is barred by res judicata, it is necessary to examine the question with reference to: (a) The form or a pretence of the Court; (b) the party and representatives; (c) mattes in issue; (d) mattes whioh ought to have been made ground for defence or attack in the former suit; (e) the final decision; In order that a defence of res judicata may succeed, it is necessary to show that not only the cause of action was the same but also the Petitioners had an opportunity of getting the relief which they are now seeking in the former proceedings. The test is whether the claim in the subsequent proceeding is in fact founded upon the sarne cause of action which was the foundation of the former proceeding. Section 11 of the CPC bars the proceeding or an issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has already been adjudicated upon in a previous proceeding. A matter which is collaterally or incidentally in issue for the purpose of deciding the matter, which is directly in issue in the case cannot be made the basis of a place of res judicata. A matter which is collaterally or incidentally in issue for the purpose of deciding the matter, which is directly in issue in the case cannot be made the basis of a place of res judicata. Therefore, the order passed by the consolidation authority will not operate as res judicata. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders vide Annexures 6, 7 and 8 passed byOpposite Parties 1 to 3 in a proceeding under Sections 22 and 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.