JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. — As the controversy in both the aforesaid cases is identical and based on similar facts and point of law, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioners seek to assail the order dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunupur in O.S.A.T.I.P Case No.7/2000. The dispute has a chequered career inasmuch as it was before this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.10443 of 2004 disposed of on 16.11.2004. By the said order this Court held as follows :- “Taking into consideration all these facts in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh (supra) while confirming the order of eviction of the petitioners passed by the authorities below, I remand the matter to the Officer-on-Special Duty with following directions :- (i) The Officer-on-Special Duty shall determine the extent of lands over which constructions were raised prior to the date of initiation of the proceeding. Such determination shall be made by engaging a survey-knowing commissioner who shall visit the spot and make measurement. The Officer-on-Special Duty shall examine such witnesses as may be necessary for determining the age of the constructions made on the disputed lands. (ii) The Officer-on-Special Duty, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and if necessary by recording additional evi¬dence, shall decide whether a direction for demolition of the constructions allegedly made by the petitioners and specific restoration of possession to opposite party No.4 is called for. In the alternative the Officer-on-Special Duty shall determine if in respect of the encroachment having been proved, an order for award of suitable compensation in lieu of demolition of construc¬tion and restoration of possession would be a more appropriate relief; and (iii) In the event the Officer-on-Special Duty forms an opinion in favour of award of compensation, the same shall be assessed and shall be a condition precedent for condoning the encroachment and unauthorized constructions. The Officer-on-Special Duty shall, however, implement the order of eviction so far as the portions of the disputed land over which no construc¬tion exists and the lands over which the construction were raised after initiation of the proceeding under Regulation 2 of 1956.” In consonance with the said direction, it appears the Sub-Collector, Gunupur by order dated 16.1.2006 directed to evict the petitioners from the disputed land and restored the possession thereof to the original owners (Scheduled Tribe persons). The said order is assailed in these Writ Petitions. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details the short facts which are necessary for appreciating the inter se dispute are as follows :- The Revenue Inspector, Jaltar submitted a report before the Sub-Collector, Gunupur alleging that the petitioners who are non Scheduled Tribe persons had forcibly encroached upon the lands belonging to tribal persons and were occupying the same unautho¬risedly. On the basis of such report the Sub-Collector registered OSATIP Case Nos.22/03 to 29/03 and 32/03 to 35/03. All the cases were heard together and were disposed of by common order dated 18.12.2003. The Sub-Collector held the possession of each of the petitioner to be unauthorized and illegal and directed eviction from the suit lands. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners preferred several appeals before the Addl.District Magistrate, Rayagada. The said appeals were registered as OSATIP Appeal Case No.21/04 to 32/04. According to the petitioners they had acquired title over the disputed lands by virtue of their possession from time of their ancestors and that the Officer-on-Special Duty without giving them adequate opportunity disposed of the cases. The Sub-Collector (appellate authority) after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that all the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the lands belonging to Scheduled Tribe community and such occupation is in contravention to the provisions of Regulation-3 (A) of Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (in short Regulation 2 of 1956). The Sub-Collector also directed to evict the petitioners from the disputed lands. The said orders was assailed in W.P.(C) No.10444 of 2004. The Sub-Collector also directed to evict the petitioners from the disputed lands. The said orders was assailed in W.P.(C) No.10444 of 2004. This Court after hear¬ing learned counsel for the parties, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 3782 held that the possession of the petitioners, from the very inception being unauthorized and contrary to law, it does not confer any title, as law does not intend to confer any premium on the wrong doing of a person in wrongful possession. Consequently the Writ Petition was disposed of as per the direction issued in para¬graph-6 of the judgment dated 16.11.2004 quoted supra. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the Officer-on-Special Duty instead of properly appreciating the order of remand has passed an order of eviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He further submitted that the observa¬tion made by the Officer-on-Special Duty to the effect that the forcible occupation cannot be regularized by giving compensation is contrary to the observation made by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the orders referred to supra. He further submitted that as the petitioners are in occupation for more than the stipulated time and they are ready and willing to pay the compensation, the authorities should have first assessed the compensation then given a choice to the land owners as to whether they are interested in the compensation or the lands and thereaf¬ter pass a reasoned order. It is submitted that as the authori¬ties failed to exercise such modality, the direction to evict the petitioners is not justified. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the order passed by the Officer-on-Special Duty can be assailed by filing an appeal before the Sub-Collector as per Regulation 2 of 1956. The petitioners without filing an appeal have rushed to this Court and as such the Writ Petitions are not maintainable and should be dismissed in limini. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Pe¬rused the materials available on record. Admittedly these Writ Petitions are pending since 2006. Four years have passed in the meanwhile. After lapse of so many years, it will not be just and prudent to relegate the matters to the appellate authority. Even otherwise the dispute is very trifle in nature. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Pe¬rused the materials available on record. Admittedly these Writ Petitions are pending since 2006. Four years have passed in the meanwhile. After lapse of so many years, it will not be just and prudent to relegate the matters to the appellate authority. Even otherwise the dispute is very trifle in nature. The only point which needs to be considered is as to whether the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh have been sacrosanctly followed by the Officer-on-Special Duty or not ? This Court after analyzing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh had given certain directions to the Officer-on-Special Duty. One of the directions was that the Officer-on-Special Duty shall first determine the extent of lands over which any construction were made prior to the date of initiation of the proceeding by engaging a Survey-knowing Commissioner. Thereafter to decide whether a direction for demolition of the constructions allegedly made by the peti¬tioners and/or restoration of the possession to opposite party Nos.4 and 5 would be more proper and beneficial. 7. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the direction issued by this Court thus requires that the Officer-on-Special Duty has to apply its mind, hear the parties and see that the rights of the Scheduled Tribe persons who are the original owners of the lands is protected for all acts and purposes. The Officer-on-Special Duty is therefore required to depute an Amin to assess the valuation of the lands and construc¬tions as per the observation made by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court, fix the compensation, grant opportunity to the original land owners and find out as to whether they are inter¬ested for compensation or the land. Only thereafter determine as to whether the petitioners should be evicted from the lands and the same should be hand over to the original land owners or it would be more beneficial if compensation worked out by the Offi¬cer-on-Special Duty is paid. The said conclusion, of course, has to arrived at after granting opportunity of hearing to the land owners and inviting their choice. Perusal of the impugned order Annexure-3 reveals that the Officer-on-Special Duty has not adopted the procedure indicated above. The said conclusion, of course, has to arrived at after granting opportunity of hearing to the land owners and inviting their choice. Perusal of the impugned order Annexure-3 reveals that the Officer-on-Special Duty has not adopted the procedure indicated above. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned order dated 16.1.2006 under Annexure-3 passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunupur in OSATIP Case No.7 of 2000 and remit the matter back to the said authority for de novo disposal, strictly in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court and keeping in mind that the interest/benefit of the land owners would be of para¬mount consideration under the Act, and directs accordingly. With the aforesaid observations both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Petition disposed of.