JUDGMENT : N. Prusty, J. - The Respondents in R.A. Case No. 20 of 2003, who are residents of Uditnagar, P.S. Plant Site, Rourkela in the district of Sundargarh, have filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order Dated 21.8.2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh, whereby the aforesaid appeal (R.A. 20 of 2003) filed by present Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 was allowed and the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty (L.R), Panposh dated 31.12.2002 in Revenue Misc. Case No. 23 of 1994 under Regulation-2 of 1956 was set aside. 2. The records of the case indicate that a suo motu proceeding i.e. Revenue Misc. Case No. 23 of 1994 u/s 3-(A) of Regulation-2 of 1956 was initiated against Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 on the report of the Revenue Inspector, Raghunathpalli. In the aforesaid report it had been alleged that the land measuring Ac. 0.085 decimals covered by Plot Nos. 1484 and 1485 situated in village R.T.U.No.35 belonging to the present Petitioners (1 St party) Hembo Oram, Rakho @ Lakha Oram and Dhanda @ Dhunda Oram, sons of Etua Oram @ Ram Oram, who are S.T. persons of Plant Site Road, Rourkela is under illegal possession of a non-Scheduled Tribe persons, namely Ramgopal Bagaria, Sriram Bagaria and Sawarmal Bagaria, sons of late Dhansukhrai Bagaria (present Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5). 3. Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 (second party in the proceeding) had filed their show cause in the aforesaid proceeding, inter alia, stating therein that in the year 1972, a similar case bearing Revenue Misc. Case No. 119 of 1972, was instituted against them involving the same plot of land in the Court of the Learned S.D.O., Panposh and the said proceeding was dropped with the observation that the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 had perfected their right, title and interest. Thus, the Opposite Parties are the rightful owners of the property and are in peaceful possession of the land in question since 1960 i.e. from the date they purchased the land from Radhakrushna More. 4. In support of their case with regard to possession over the land in dispute, Opposite Party Nos. Thus, the Opposite Parties are the rightful owners of the property and are in peaceful possession of the land in question since 1960 i.e. from the date they purchased the land from Radhakrushna More. 4. In support of their case with regard to possession over the land in dispute, Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5/Second party had filed several documents before the Officer on Special Duty (L.R) such as: (a) Original unregistered sale deed dated 26.3.1958 executed by Hembo Oram and others in favour of Radhakrishna More, whereby the vendor sold the land measuring 117' x 31' out of Ac. 0.30 decimals pertaining to plot No. 332 of village Mahulpali, (b) Original unregistered sale deed dated 16.2.1960 executed by the aforesaid Radhakrishna More in favour of Ramgopal Bagaria and others, whereby he had sold the land measuring 117' x 15 ? out of plot No. 332 of village Mahulpali. (c) Registered sale deed dated 01.07.1971 executed by Vendor Radhakrishna More in favour of Ramgopal Bagaria and others, whereby he had sold the land measuring Ac. 0.05 3/4 decimals, out of Plot No. 332/2 of village Mahulpali. (d) Certified copy of the order sheet dated 5.11.1973 passed by the S.D.O., Panposh in R.M.C. No. 119 of 1972, which indicates that the said proceeding over the suit land was dropped with the observation that Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 have perfected their right, title and interest over the suit land. It has also been stated in their show cause that further proceeding is not maintainable under the principle of res judicata. They are in peaceful possession of the suit land since a long period, constructed building and carrying on huge business there, but the first party had never objected to the same at any point of time. 5. The Petitioners, who were the first party in Revenue Misc. Case No. 23 of 1994, had filed their written argument inter alia stating therein that the sale deeds dated 26.03.1958 and 16.02.1960 furnished by the Opposite Parties are full of discrepancies, as the caste of the vendor and vendee has not been mentioned therein. The plot from which the land has been sold has got land measuring Ac. 0.30 decimals and out of Ac. 0.30 decimals, Ac. 0.31 decimals have been sold, which is not believable. The plot from which the land has been sold has got land measuring Ac. 0.30 decimals and out of Ac. 0.30 decimals, Ac. 0.31 decimals have been sold, which is not believable. Since the land has been sold during 1958 by the schedule tribe persons without permission of the competent authority, it is hit by the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1956. Hence the transactions of 1958 and the subsequent transaction of 1960 are not genuine. Thus the subsequent transaction, whereby the land has been sold by Radhakrushna More in favour of Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 is also illegal. As such Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 cannot claim their title over the suit schedule land. It has also been pointed out by them that the Xerox copy of the order sheet dated 05.11.1973 in RMC Case No. 119 of 1972 of the S.D.O., Panposh cannot be entertained as a piece of evidence as a portion of the order has evaporated and there is a big gap before the word 'dropped'. The suit land stands recorded at present in the name of the first party/Petitioners vide Khata No. 332 of R.T.U.No.35. As such the observation that the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 have perfected their title over the suit case land, is completely unjust and illegal. 6. Considering the submissions made by both the parties, the Officer on Special Duty (LR), Panposh by Order Dated 28.02.2000 in Misc. Case No. 23 of 1994 has categorically observed that there is a big gap before the word 'dropped' in the certified copy of the order sheet dated 05.11.1973 in RMC No. 119 of 1972 and it is not possible to ascertain the correct position in the absence of the relevant case record. Neither the relevant case record of Revenue Misc. Case No. 119 of 1972 has been made available to the Court by the Offlcer-in-Charge, Record Room, Panposh in the Office of the Sub- Collector, Panposh, nor the enquiry report of the Additional Tahasildar has been made available in spite of repeated reminders; It is evident that the suit land now stands recorded in the, name of the first party members, who are the ST. persons. persons. The land transaction dated 26.03.1958 between the first party/Hembo Oram and others and Radhakrishna More was made between scheduled tribe persons and a non-scheduled tribe, since the registered sale deed dated 01.07.1971 clearly indicates that Radhakrishna More is a Vaisya by caste. The unregistered sale deed dated 26.03.1958 and 16.02.1960 do not indicate the caste of the vendor "and the vendee and also does not indicate as to whether any permission of the competent authority was obtained or not for sale of the land toy a scheduled tribe person to a non-scheduled tribe, prior to the execution of that sale deed dated 26.03.1958. Keeping in view the observations made above the Learned Officer on Special Duty (L.R), Panposh came to a categorical finding that "the O.P. has unauthorisedly occupied the suit land belonging to the 1st party" and therefore "declared the occupation of the case land by the O.P. as illegal and void as per provisions of Section 3(A) of Reg. 2/56" and accordingly directed the Opposite Parties to vacate the case land and hand over vacant possession of the suit land to the first party Within a period of thirty days. 7. Challenging the above said Order Dated 28.02.2000 passed by the Officer on Special Duty (LR), Panposh in Revenue Misc. Case No. 23 of 1994 under Regulation 2 of 1956, the second party members i.e. Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 preferred an appeal and the Appellate authority remanded back the matter to the Officer on Special Duty (LR), Panposh with certain observations. Again MIsc. Case No. 23 of 1994 was disposed of by the Officer-on-Special Duty (LR) vide Order Dated 31.12.2002. 8. In the order of the Officer on Special Duty (LR) dated 31.12.2002, as regards the case of the present Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 (second party), it has been mentioned that the Opposite Parties did not adduce any fresh evidence. The 1st party has given in writing that the case land was under the occupation of the O.P. When both the parties agreed that the case land is under occupation of O.P., it was not necessary to conduct field verification. The 1st party has given in writing that the case land was under the occupation of the O.P. When both the parties agreed that the case land is under occupation of O.P., it was not necessary to conduct field verification. The unregistered sale deed dated 26.03.1958 was executed between Hembo Oram, Lakho Oram and Dhanda Oram, sons of Ram Oram of village Mahulpali, P.S. Raghunathpali of Sundargarh district and Radhakrishna More son of Braja Mohanlal More of Bhadrak town, P.S. Bhadrak of Balasore district for Rs. 3,000/- for the land under Khata No. 90 pertaining to Plot No. 332 an area of 117' X 31'. Another registered sale deed dated 01.07.1971 was executed between Radhakrishna More son of Braja Mohanlal More of Bhadrak town of Balasore district and Ram Gopal Bagaria, Sri Ram Bagaria and Sawarmal Bagarja, son of Dhansukhrai Bagaria, caste Vaisya, Plant-site Road, Rourkela District: Sundrgarh for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- in respect of land pertaining to Plot No. 332/2 measuring an area of Ac. 0.05 ? decimals of Mukherjee settlement Khata No. 90. The Opposite Parties are claiming over the case land based on the above documents. Besides that an earlier case bearing No. 119 of 172 was instituted against the Opposite Parties which was finally dropped for which the principles of res judicata applicable in the present case. As such, the present case is to be dropped. 9. As regards the pleadings of the present Petitioners (first party), in the above said Order Dated 31.12.2002, it has been mentioned that the 1st party members have filed Original Hal Khata No. 491 of village RTU-35 recorded in the name of Hembo Oram, Lakho Oram and Dhanda Oram, sons of Etua Oram, caste-Oram of RTU-35 in which Plot Nos. 1484 and 1485 measuring Ac. 0.050 and 0.035 have been recorded as forcibly possessed by Sri Ram Bagaria and others and Ram Gopal Bagaria, Sri Ram Bagaria and Siar Bagaria, sons of Dhansukhrai Bagaria respectively. As regards unregistered sale deed, the Opposite Parties have failed to prove the same by the signatories to the documents that the deed was actually executed in their presence. As the amount was more than Rs. 100 it is compulsorily registrable and it is an invalid document in the eye of law. As regards unregistered sale deed, the Opposite Parties have failed to prove the same by the signatories to the documents that the deed was actually executed in their presence. As the amount was more than Rs. 100 it is compulsorily registrable and it is an invalid document in the eye of law. The execution took place in the year 1958 when the prohibition to transfer tribal land was in force and no permission has been taken by the sellers for transfer of the case land to purchasers. Further the Opposite Parties failed to prove with any documentary evidence as to when they entered into the case land, for which the limitation period would have been calculated. The Opposite Parties also failed to mutate the land in their name, either in the office of the Tahasildar or before the settlement authorities. Under the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe about the execution of deed in the year 1958 in accordance with law in force and it is not acceptable. 10. As regards application of principles of res judicata to the present case, in view of the RMC No. 119 of 1972 dropped in favour of the Opposite Parties, on perusal of the order there has been no mention about the first parties who were made parties to the case. The certified copy of the documents like petition of first parties and their objections if any have not been filed by the Opposite Parties for perusal of the Court to determine as to whether the principles of res judicata is applicable to the present case. Hence the plea of res judicata was rejected and finally the Learned Officer on Special Duty (L.R) observed that: ln View of the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, I am not inclined-to believe that the case land is forcibly in occupation of the Opposite Parties and liable to be evicted u/s 3A of Regulation 2 of 1956 read with Regulation of 1 of 2000. l order for eviction of O.Ps from the case land and restore the same to the 1 st parties or their legal heirs. The O.Ps are directed to hand over vacant possession within 30 days failing which issue delivery warrant in favour of 1st parties authorizing Addl. Tahasildar, Rourkela for execution. 11. l order for eviction of O.Ps from the case land and restore the same to the 1 st parties or their legal heirs. The O.Ps are directed to hand over vacant possession within 30 days failing which issue delivery warrant in favour of 1st parties authorizing Addl. Tahasildar, Rourkela for execution. 11. Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order Dated 31.12.2002 filed Revenue Appeal No. 20 of 2003 before the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh, which was disposed of vide Order Dated 21.08.2003 by setting aside order of the Officer-on-Special Duty (L.R.), Panposh with the observation that: It reveals from the order passed by lower Court on 31.12.2002 that the case land is under the possession of the Appellant of this case. On verification of the documents submitted by the parties concerned and order passed by lower Court it is found that the O.P. i.e. Respondent of this case had sold an area of 117' x 31' under Plot No. 332 in Khata No. 90 of village Mahulpali in favour of Sri Radhakrishna More S/0 Late Brajamohanlal More of Bhadrak Town Dist. Balasore through unregistered sale deed on 26.03.1958 to the consideration money of Rs. 3,00/-. Subsequently, Sri Radhakrishna More had sold his above case land in favour of Appellant of this case in two phase i.e. on 16.02.60 an area of 117'x 15 ?' by unregistered sale deed towards cost of Rs. 15,000 and on 01.07-1971 an area of Ac. 0.05 3/4 of Khata No. 90 under Plot No. 332/2 on the consideration money of Rs. 20,000/ - through registered sale deed vide Deed No. 334/dated 01.07.1971. Xxx XXX It appear from certified copy of order passed by Sri P.C. Rath, S.D.O., Panposh on 05.11.1973 in his Misc. Case No. 119/72 in which his Misc. Case No. 117/72 also reflected that the above cases was instituted against the Appellant of this case. The case land has also reflected in the said case record which had been dropped on 05.11.73, though the Appellant of this case was perfected his right, title over the case land on the strength of possession since 1960. It is for the Defendants to prove that the Appellant has on the other hand acquired title by adverse possession. Therefore, it was initially the onus was on the Defendant to prove his possession for more than the statutory period. It is for the Defendants to prove that the Appellant has on the other hand acquired title by adverse possession. Therefore, it was initially the onus was on the Defendant to prove his possession for more than the statutory period. The Advocate for Appellant has expressed that the Appellant is paying holding tax, electricity dues to the Rourkela Municipality for the suit land. Further It is indicated that the objection points raised by Respondent during the time of hearing and showing in the petition, has since been reflected in the order sheet passed by this Court on 11.04.2001 in R.A.Case No. 1 of 2000. In the Misc. Case bearing No. 119 of 1972 of S.D.O., Panposh bearing Mise Case No. 119/72 in which M.C.C.No.117/72 has been reflected, above that the Appellant of this case is possessing the above case land rightly. 12. Accordingly, the Learned Appellate Court set aside the order of the Officer on Special Duty (LR), Panposh dated 31.12.2002. Hence this Writ Petition. 13. Being aggrieved by the above Order Dated 21.08.2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh in Revenue Appeal No. 20 of 2003, the 1st party members in Revenue Misc.Case No. 23 of 1994, who were the Respondents in R.A. No. 20 of 2003, have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the above said order. As it appears from the record, in spite of valid service of notice, Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 did not bother to appear in the present case, nor file their counter affidavit/written submission. 14. Heard Mr. Patitapabana Panda, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Advocate for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. 15. Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel submits that while disposing of Revenue Misc. Case No. 23 of 1994, Learned Officer on Special Duty (LR), Panposh by his Order Dated 31.12.2002 did not accept the genuineness of the unregistered sale deeds dated 26.03.1958 and 16.10.1960 on the ground that both the above unregistered sale deeds did not contain caste of the vendor and vendee; it is not believable that out of Ac. 0.30 decimals of total land, as to how Ac. 0.31 decimals of land was sold and as such the subsequent transaction was illegal. The transactions dated 26.03.1958 and 16.02.1960 were for more than Rs. 100. Since the consideration money of sale deed dated 26.03.1958 was for Rs. 0.30 decimals of total land, as to how Ac. 0.31 decimals of land was sold and as such the subsequent transaction was illegal. The transactions dated 26.03.1958 and 16.02.1960 were for more than Rs. 100. Since the consideration money of sale deed dated 26.03.1958 was for Rs. 3000 and of sale deed dated 16.02.1960 it was Rs. 15000/:, both the documents ought to have been registered compulsorily. As such the documents under which the transaction-dated 26.03.1958 and 16.02.1960 were made are invalid/ void documents in the eye of law and as such no title over the case land can pass through those void/invalid documents. Since no permission was obtained from the competent authority for sale of the land by scheduled tribe persons (present Petitioners) to a non-scheduled tribe (Radhakrishna More) as per the requirement of law, the initial sale deed dated 26.03.1958 is an inv lid document and in that view of the matter no title can pass to the vendee of the said sale deed (Radheshyam More). Admittedly, the present purchasers/Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 have purchased the land from Radhakrishna More vide unregistered sale deed dated 16.02.1960 and registered sale deed dated 01.07.1971. Since Radhakrishna More did not have right, title and interest over the suit/ case land, even though he has sold the land to the present Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5, no right, title and interest over the said land can pass in their favour. As such the entire transactions are not genuine and completely illegal. In view of the above, Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 can only be termed as trespassers on the land having no right, title and interest over the property and also they cannot claim their right, title and interest by way of adverse possession as against scheduled tribe persons, since they do not belong to Scheduled tribe. 16. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Ors. reported in 98 (2004) CLT 19(SC) and in the case of Lincai Gamango and Ors. v. Dayanidhi Jena and Ors. 16. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Ors. reported in 98 (2004) CLT 19(SC) and in the case of Lincai Gamango and Ors. v. Dayanidhi Jena and Ors. reported in 98 (2004) CLT 411 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that the plea of adverse possession of tribal lands by a non-tribal has no scope u/s 2, 3 and 7-D of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 and as such the non-tribal cannot acquire right, title on the said land by adverse possession. In paragraph-24 of the decision in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Ors. (supra), it has been held that: X X XXX XX XX In other words, a default or inaction on the part of a tribal which results in deprivation or deterioration of his rights over immovable properties would amount to 'dealing' by him with such property, and hence a transfer of immovable property. It is so because the tribal is considered by the legislation not to be capable of protecting his own immovable property. A provision has been made by Para 3-A of the 1956 Regulation for evicting any unauthorized occupant, by way of trespass or otherwise, of any immovable property of the member of the Scheduled Tribe, the steps in regard to which may be taken by the tribal or by any persons interested therein or even suo motu by the competent authority. The concept of locus standi looses its significance. The State is the custodian and trustee of the immovable property of tribal and is enjoined to see that the tribal remains in possession of such property. No period of limitation is prescribed by para 3-A. The prescription of the period of 12 years in Article 65 of the Limitation Act becomes irrelevant so far as the immovable property of a tribal is concerned. The Tribal need not file civil suit, which will be governed by the law of Limitation; it is enough if he or anyone on his behalf moves the State or the State itself moves into action to protect him and restores his properties to him. To such an action neither Article 65 of Limitation Act nor Section 27 thereof would be attracted. To such an action neither Article 65 of Limitation Act nor Section 27 thereof would be attracted. In paragraph-27 of the said decision it has been clarified that: Still we make it clear that the provisions of Para 7-D of the Regulations are to be read in the light of the principle which we have laid down hereinabove. A tribal may acquire title by adverse possession over the immovable property of another tribal by reference to para 7-D of the Regulations read with Article 65 and Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but a non-tribal can neither prescribe nor acquire title by adverse possession over the property belonging to a tribal as the same is specifically prohibited by a special law promulgated by the State legislature or the Governor in exercise of the power conferred in that regard by the Constitution of India. A general law cannot defeat the provisions of a special law to the extent to which they are in conflict; else an effort has to be made at reconciling the two provisions by homogenous reading. In the case of Lincai Gamango and Ors. v. Dayanidhi Jena and Ors. (supra), in paragraph-7 of the Judgment it has been observed as follows: It is further observed that the provisions of Section 7-D of the Regulations are to be read in the light of the fact that the acquisition of right and title by adverse possession is claimed by a tribal over the immovable property of another tribal but not where the question is in regard to a non-tribal claiming title by adverse possession over the land belonging to a tribal situate in a tribal area. It is, therefore, clear in view of the decision in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh (supra) that a non-tribal would not acquire right and title on the basis of adverse possession. In paragraph-9 of the above Judgment, the Supreme Court has also finally observed that: The question of acquisition of right and title by adverse possession by non-tribal over the land in the scheduled area belonging to a member of the Scheduled tribe does not arise. 17. Considering the submissions made by Learned Counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above, I am of the considered view that for a sale deed whereby a tangible immovable property of more than Rs. 17. Considering the submissions made by Learned Counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above, I am of the considered view that for a sale deed whereby a tangible immovable property of more than Rs. 100/- valuation is sold, registration of such a deed is a must as per the Statutory provision i.e. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and if such a sale deed is not registered then no right, title and interest on the property under such sale shall pass in favour of the purchaser of that property and such unregistered document shall be a void document in the eye of law, since no title can be conveyed in favour of the purchaser of such tangible immovable property. In the instant case the property sold through the so-called sale deed dated 26.03.1958 by the Petitioners in favour of Radhakrishna More, who is the vendor of the present Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 for a consideration money of Rs. 3000/-, was an unregistered document. As such, no right, title and interest over the land under such transaction shall pass in favour of Radhakrishna More through that unregistered sale deed, which is itself a void document in the eye of law. Since Radhakrishna More was not having right, title and interest over the case land, the Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 having purchased the same land from Radhakrishna More cannot acquire right, title and interest over that land. 18. Admittedly, since Radhakrishna More is a vaisya by caste, as has been mentioned in the sale deed dated 01.07.1971, he is not a scheduled tribe and no permission having been granted by the Competent Authority under the Act (Regulation 2 of 1956) for sale of such land situated in a scheduled area, by a member of a Scheduled Tribe (Petitioner) in favour of a non Scheduled Tribe (Radhakrishna More), before execution of the initial unregistered sale deed dated 26.03.1958, the right, title and interest over such land of the Petitioners- a Tribal cannot pass in favour of Radhakrishna More a Non-Tribal. Since Radhakrishna More was not having right, title and interest over the case/suit land, the Opposite Party Nos. Since Radhakrishna More was not having right, title and interest over the case/suit land, the Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 who had purchased the said land from Radhakrishna More through unregistered sale deed dated 16.12.1960 as well as registered sale deed dated 01.07.1971 can never have right, title and Interest over that immovable property. 19. So far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Ors. (supra), acquisition of title in favour of a non-tribal by invoking doctrine of adverse of possession over the immovable property belonging to a tribal, is prohibited under law. As because the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 are non-tribals, they cannot claim their right, title and interest by way of adverse possession over the immovable property belonging to the Petitioners, who are tribals, in view of such settled principles of law. As such the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5, who are non-tribals can only be termed as trespassers over the immovable property of the Petitioners, who are tribals, having no right, title and interest over the same. 20. In view of the above, Order Dated 21.08.2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh in Revenue Appeal No. 20 of 2003 is set aside and Order Dated 31.12.2002 passed by the Officer on Special Duty (L.R.), Panposh in Revenue Misc. Case No. 23 of 1994 under Regulation 2 of 1956 is upheld/restored. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The concerned authorities are directed to take appropriate steps in the matter in conformity with the Order Dated 31.12.2002 passed by the Officer on Special Duty (L.R), Panposh and in case the Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 fail to hand over vacant possession of the land to the Petitioners pursuant to Order Dated 31.12.2002, the concerned authority/Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to take all required steps immediately for eviction of Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5, in accordance with law, through the concerned Tahasildar. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed