JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - Challenge has been made in this Writ Petition to the Order Dated 17.12.2002 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Dhenkanal in OLR Appeal No. 3 of 2000 confirming the Order Dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Sub-Collector, Kamakhyanagar in OLR Case No. 7 of 1999 in a proceeding u/s 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short, "the Act"). 2. The facts leading to the present Writ Petition are as follows: Opp. Parties 3 and 4 are the owners of the disputed land measuring an area of Acs.0.020, 0.130 and 0 040 decimals in Plot Nos. 54, 53/2137, 54/2116 under Holding Nos. 284/127, 284/ 127 and 284/126 respectively of village Jiramalia. On the letter No. 130 dated 15.11.1999 of the R.I., Kamakhyanagar, a proceeding u/s 23-A of the Act was initiated on the ground that the present Petitioners along with six other persons were in unauthorized occupation of the land by installing wooden cabins. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector, Kamakhyanagar issued show cause notice to the encroachers. In pursuance thereof, they showed cause notice pleading that the disputed land was originally recorded in the names of Balaram Sahu and Sankar Sahu sons of Mahadev and Ananta Sahu son of Nabina of village Jiridamali and Jiramalia in Sabik Settlement. The land was acquired by the Government for construction of a road. The ROR was corrected on 28.1.1970 and recorded in the name of the Government. Therefore, the Applicants had no right over the said land. They continued in possession of the land since 1960 openly, peacefully and with the knowledge of everybody. As such, they are not entitled to be evicted. The Applicants in support of their contention filed a copy of the Hal ROR in which they were recorded as owners of the plot after Mutation Case Nos. 2125 of 1994 and 2068 of 1997 were allowed by the Tahasildar, Kamakhyanagar. They purchased the said land through registered sale deed. In the application, they specifically stated that for the last seven years, the encroachers forcefully installed wooden cabins and they were paying rent to the Government. They had also filed the rent receipts. On the basis of the documentary evidence, the Sub-Collector recorded the finding that the land had been recorded in the name of the first party members and they were giving usual rents to the Government. Therefore, the possession of the Opp. They had also filed the rent receipts. On the basis of the documentary evidence, the Sub-Collector recorded the finding that the land had been recorded in the name of the first party members and they were giving usual rents to the Government. Therefore, the possession of the Opp. Parties had been declared as unauthorized and they were liable to be evicted as per Section 23-A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, only seven persons filed OLR Appeal No. 3 of 2000 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Dhenkanal. In the said appeal, they filed a memo on 19.4.2000 for permitting them to adduce evidence. Without any order being passed on that memo and without consideration of the fact that the disputed land was not identifiable, the Government acquired the land for construction of Kamakhyanagar-Bhuban road. The name of the Government had been mutated in Mutation Case No. 26 of 1970-1971. Therefore, the Applicants had no right over the disputed land. As such, they were not liable to be evicted. The Appellate authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties allowed them to file their written note of submissions. Taking into consideration the stand taken by the parties, he came to the conclusion that on the basis of the decision reported in D.N. Venkatarayappa and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, that the Government granted lease to S.C. or S.T. persons can be resumed after transfer of the land to non-S.C. or non-S.T. persons and the question of adverse possession does not arise. Therefore, whether the encroacher was in possession of the land for 30 years or 12 yeas will not be of any relevance of the case. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, there is no force in the said contention. On such finding, the Appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Collector which is impugned in this Writ Petition. Though the order passed by the Appellate authority was against seven persons, only two persons have filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had taken a stand before the Appellate authority that they had filed a memo to adduce evidence. Though the order passed by the Appellate authority was against seven persons, only two persons have filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had taken a stand before the Appellate authority that they had filed a memo to adduce evidence. Since without giving them an opportunity to adduce evidence the Sub-Collector passed the order, the Appellate authority should have considered the same in its proper perspective and allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Sub-Collector for giving a chance to them to adduce oral evidence regarding plea of adverse possession. Since the finding of the Appellate authority that the question of adverse possession can not be entertained is not sustainable in the eye of law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and an opportunity of hearing should be given to them to adduce evidence. 4. Learned Counsel for Opp. Parties 3 and 4 supporting the impugned order submitted that the disputed property has already been recorded in the names of Opp. Parties 3 and 4. During pendency of the Writ Petition, Opp. Party No. 4 died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as parties to the Writ Petition. Since they are the owners of the property by purchasing the same through registered sale deed dated 7.1.1980, their names had been mutated and the ROR had been corrected and they were paying rent to the Government. Since the fact that they belong to the Scheduled Tribes is not disputed, the OLR authorities have rightly passed the order of eviction. He further submitted that a portion of the disputed land was taken over for construction of road. However, the rest part of the property is in possession of the owner-purchasers and they are in peacefully possession of the land from the date of purchase. The encroachers without any authority have put the wooden cabins for the last Seven years from the date of initiation of the proceeding. As such, they are liable to be evicted. 5. From the submissions of the parties and after perusal of the LCR, it appears that the Writ Petition has been filed by two persons though eviction order has been passed by the Sub-Collector against eight persons. Such order has been confirmed against one of the encroachers who did not file any appeal before the ADM. 5. From the submissions of the parties and after perusal of the LCR, it appears that the Writ Petition has been filed by two persons though eviction order has been passed by the Sub-Collector against eight persons. Such order has been confirmed against one of the encroachers who did not file any appeal before the ADM. The ADM, in his turn, confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Collector. During appeal, the Applicants did not file any application to adduce further evidence. 6. Law is well settled that the Appellate Court is the final Court of facts and law. If the Sub-Collector did not allow the Applicants to adduce evidence, they could have adduced evidence by filing application before the Appellate authority. As they have not done so, they cannot now take a stand in this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. So far as the plea of adverse possession of the Petitioners is concerned, there is no iota of evidence available on record that they had proved the plea of adverse possession. Even though they had pleaded in their show cause that they are in possession of the area in question since 1960, without adducing any evidence to establish such plea, the said plea was rightly not considered by the Appellate authority. The Applicants have forfeited their rights to adduce further evidence without taking any step before the Appellate authority. The Appellate authority has rightly rejected their plea of adverse possession. Opp. Parties 3 and 4 purchased the land through registered sale deed. As such, they are the owners of the property and the land is also recorded in their names in mutation proceeding and the sale deed issued in their favour has not been challenged. Therefore, they are not entitled to recovery of the property. 8. Since there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the OLR authorities, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed