JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - Challenge has been made in this writ petition to the order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the Collector, Koraput in OLR Revision Case No. 6 of 2002 whereby he dropped the revision case. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: On the report of the WEO, Kundura in respect of Plot No. 150 under Khata No. 129 measuring an area of Ac.3.72 decimals belonging to one Chandra Harijan @ Domba son of Senapati Harizan was under unauthorized occupation of one Raghu Pradhani son of B.Pradhani,. OLR Case No. 1 of 1998 was registered. Notice was issued to the unauthorized occupant. After hearing the parties and conducting due enquiry, the Revenue Officer, Jeypore restored the land in favour of Chandra Harizan @ Domba. Against the said order, the present Petitioner Jagabandhu Gonda filed an appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput in OLRA No. 15 of 1997 stating therein that his father purchased the land in the year 1967 and since then he is in possession of the same. He was not a party in the proceeding between Chandra Harijan @ Domba and Raghu Pradhani. The Addl. District Magistrate after hearing the appeal set aside the order passed by the Revenue Officer and remanded the matter to the lower court. Against the said remand order, Chandra Harijan @ Domba filed a revision before the Collector, Koraput in OLRA No. 2 of 1997. After hearing the parties, the revisional authority remanded the matter to the revenue authority. The present Petitioner Jagabandhu Gonda was made a party to the said proceeding. The said case was re-heard and all the parties examined their witnesses in support of their case. After receipt of the order, Jagabandhu Gonda filed a certified copy of registered sale deed No. 1814/67, nine rent receipts, ROR of Khata No. 41 and the certified copy of OLR Case No. 19/75. The Petitioner examined three witnesses. Raghu Pradhani examined himself as a witness and Jagabandhu Gonda examined four witnesses. They also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Sub-Collector after analyzing the evidence as well as the materials available on record came to the finding that the land was purchased during the year 1967 vide registered sale deed No. 1814. Jagabandhu Gonda deposited the land rent and produced the rent receipt of the year 1975-76. They also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Sub-Collector after analyzing the evidence as well as the materials available on record came to the finding that the land was purchased during the year 1967 vide registered sale deed No. 1814. Jagabandhu Gonda deposited the land rent and produced the rent receipt of the year 1975-76. From those documents, he came to the conclusion that the father of Jagabandhu Gonda had purchased the suit land during the year 1967 and was in actual possession. Petitioner and opposite party No. 1- Raghu Pradhani joined hands to grab the land by instituting a false case. As Raghu Pradhani did not contest the earlier case properly, the Sub-Collector, Jeypore by order dated 16.10.2004 declared the sale deed as genuine and Jagabandhu Gonda was in possession of the land. Against the said order, the present opposite party No. 2-Chandra Harijan @ Domba filed OLR Appeal No. 4 of 2001 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput who after hearing the parties and analyzing the materials on record came to the finding that Plot No. 150 under Khata No. 129 measuring an area of Ac.3.72 decimals of village Pokhanaguda, P.S. Kundura was recorded in the name of Laxman Barik. The elder brother of Chandra Harijan @ Domba was the only heir of the recorded tenant. The father of Chandra Harijan @ Domba earlier filed a case against one Raghu Pradhani who made a benami sale deed and unauthorized possession in OLR Case No. 19 of 1975. In that case, the land was restored to the father of Chandra Harijan @ Domba and Rs. 800 was imposed as fine on the said Raghu Pradhani who again filed OLR Case No. 3 of 1996 before the Revenue Officer, Jeypore against the said Benamidar. In the said OLR Case, the land was restored to Chandra Harijan. Jagabandhu Gonda filed a case u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Revenue Officer, Jeypore which was registered as Misc. Case No. 206 of 1997 and the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, Jagabandhu Gonda filed an appeal before 'the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput which was registered as OLRA No. 15 of 1997 which was allowed on 23.10.2002. Since No. opportunity of hearing was given to Chandra Harijan, he preferred a revision before the Collector, Koraput against the order passed in OLR Appeal No. 15 of 1997. Being aggrieved by the said order, Jagabandhu Gonda filed an appeal before 'the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput which was registered as OLRA No. 15 of 1997 which was allowed on 23.10.2002. Since No. opportunity of hearing was given to Chandra Harijan, he preferred a revision before the Collector, Koraput against the order passed in OLR Appeal No. 15 of 1997. The Collector, Koraput remanded the matter to the lower court for re-trial and examination of witnesses of the sale deed. Raghu Pradhani admitted that the sale transaction was a benami transaction as he purchased the land in the name of the father of Jagabandhu Gonda and Raghu Pradhani was a witness to the said sale deed. The benamidar repeatedly admitted that several times cases were instituted against him and fine was imposed on him for such unauthorized occupation. He clearly stated that Jagabandhu Gonda was never in possession of the case land. One Laikhan Chalan, the boundary witness of the disputed land, in OLR Case No. 3 of 1996 deposed that the land was in possession of Raghu Pradhani. The said witness in OLR Case No. 1 of 1998 again deposed that Jagabandhu Gonda was in possession of the disputed land. Therefore, the deposition given for the second time was not believable. A Parcha Patta was issued in favour of Chandra Harijan @ Domba by the settlement authority. The appeal filed by Jagabandhu Gonda was rejected by the settlement authority during the Rent Camp. The final ROR was issued in favour of Jagabandhu Gonda on 29.3.2001 without giving any opportunity to Chandra Harijan as he was absent during the Rent Camp. In view of the above facts, the declaration of the Sub-Collector that Jagabandhu Gonda is in possession on the basis of registered sale deed No. 1814 dated 13.7.67 was not correct. Verification of the previous OLR cases reveals that Jagabandhu Gonda never claimed for his possession during the last 34 years. Moreover, the original sale deed was also not produced by Jagabandhu Gonda as Sri Karuna Mohuria, the second witness to the said sale deed, was not examined anywhere. Hence, the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput by order dated 23rd October, 2002 set aside the order of the Sub-Collector and allowed the appeal. Against the said order of the Addl. Moreover, the original sale deed was also not produced by Jagabandhu Gonda as Sri Karuna Mohuria, the second witness to the said sale deed, was not examined anywhere. Hence, the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput by order dated 23rd October, 2002 set aside the order of the Sub-Collector and allowed the appeal. Against the said order of the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput, Jagabandhu Gonda filed OLR Revision No. 6 of 2002 before the Collector, Koraput who by order dated 21.12.2002 dropped the said revision case on the grounds that Jagabandhu Gonda was absent on the date fixed and Chandra Harijan was in possession of the case land. Hence this writ petition. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that since the revision case was not heard on merit, a chance should be given to the Petitioner to put forth his case. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that as opposite party No. 2 as well as the Petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe, proceeding u/s 23-A of the OLR Act was not maintainable. He further submitted that the land belongs to opposite party No. 2.,His predecessor-in-interest was the recorded tenant and in possession of the said land which was restored to him in the OLR Case. It is the specific case of opposite party No. 2 that one Raghu Pradhani was in unauthorized occupation of the land which had been purchased in the name of the father of Jagabandhu Gonda. Said Jagabandhu Gonda was never in possession of the land. Since the said Raghu Pradhani was in unauthorized occupation of the land, the same was rightly restored to opposite party No. 2 in respect of which the order was passed by the Collector, Koraput in OLR Revision Case in the year 2002. This writ petition was filed two years after without whispering the cause of the delay in filing the writ petition for which the writ petition should be dismissed in limine. He further stated that since Chandra Harijan belongs to Scheduled Tribe, so also the present Petitioner, an application u/s 23-A of the Act was not maintainable. If any right has accrued to the Petitioner, he may resort to the same in accordance with law and his grievance cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of the OLR Act. 5. He further stated that since Chandra Harijan belongs to Scheduled Tribe, so also the present Petitioner, an application u/s 23-A of the Act was not maintainable. If any right has accrued to the Petitioner, he may resort to the same in accordance with law and his grievance cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of the OLR Act. 5. From the records it appears that the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 belongs to Scheduled Tribe. In the case of Anadi Mohanta (dead) and after him Kointa Mohanta and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 1989 (II) OLR 115, the Division Bench of this Court has held that transfer by aboriginal tribe in favour of non aboriginal without permission of the required authority was not permissible and the transfer under the OLR Act is maintainable when any transfer contravenes the provision of Section 22 of the Act. Section 23 enumerates the effect of any transfer in contravention of Section 22 of the Act. Transfer in contravention of any other law would normally not come within the purview of Section 23 of the Act. Section 23-A was introduced in the OLR Act by Act 44 of 1976 which provides that where any person is found to be in unauthorized occupation of the whole or part of a holding belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe within any part of the State other than a Scheduled Area, by way of trespass or otherwise, the Revenue Officer may, either on application by the owner or any person interested therein or on his own motion, and after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, order eviction of the person so found to be in unauthorized occupation and shall cause restoration of the property to the said owner or to his heir in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 23. Thus, the transfer by a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person belonging to a non-Scheduled Caste or non-Scheduled Tribe is prohibited under the law in force. The said transaction may come within the scope of Section 23-A of the Act. As such, a transferee may be called to be in unauthorized occupation of the property within the meaning of the said Section. 6. The said transaction may come within the scope of Section 23-A of the Act. As such, a transferee may be called to be in unauthorized occupation of the property within the meaning of the said Section. 6. In the present case, since the plea taken by the Petitioner is that he was in possession of the land by virtue of a sale deed in the year 1967, his claim is not coming within the purview of the OLR Act as the sale deed was not between a Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste person and a Non-Scheduled Tribe/Non-Scheduled Caste person. That being the position and the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput by order dated 23.10.2002 in the OLR Appeal Case No. 4 of 2001 having restored the possession of the land to the legal heirs of the recorded tenant, and the Petitioner having approached the writ court after two years from the date of the order of the Addl. District Magistrate, Koraput, this Court is not 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is open to the Petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy available under law. Final Result : Dismissed