JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus for directing the registering authority to register the sale deed presented for registration. 2. Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner is a registered tenant in respect of a house standing over the area measuring Ac.0.054 decimals of Major Settlement Plot No. 808/4291, appertaining to Major Settlement Khata No. 644/1176. Presently, the kissam of the land is Gharbari-I. The petitioner purchased the said house under a Registered Deed of Sale vide RSD No. 11621303761 dated 7.10.2013. The house is situated within the Sambalpur Municipal Corporation i.e. an urban area. Sri Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that following the provision contained in Section 73-C of the Orissa Land Reform Act, the land situated in Municipal Corporation area is exempted from the purview of the O.L.R. Act. Therefore, there is no application of any of the provisions contained under the O.L.R. Act involving the disputed land having already merged in the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner presented the sale deed for registration on 26.9.2016, even though the instrument was accepted but later on, the registering authority refused to register the same on the premises of violation of the provisions contained under Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, which action since bad and against law, request is being made for interfering in the impugned action and issuing appropriate mandamus. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the transfer involved is made by a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a non-Scheduled Tribe. Taking resort to a notification in the Orissa Gazettee on 14th July, 1972 bringing the area involving the petitioner's land to the fold of town planning authority and further relying on decisions as reported in 1st-1999 (II) OLR(SC)182, 2nd- Vol.71(1991) CLT 390 and 3rd-Vol.43 (1977) CLT, 61, Sri Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the conversion of the land from agricultural status to homestead by the competent authority and for the notification in the Orissa Gazettee on 14th July, 1972, it becomes clear that the authorities went wrong in refusing to register the instrument. 4. 4. Learned Additional Government, advocate in his opposition, even though did not refute the claim of the petitioner that at some stage there was permission by the competent authority for conversion of the status of the land from agricultural to homestead following the provision contained in O.L.R. Act but refuted the claim of Sri Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner on the premises that for no notification under Section 73 of the O.L.R. Act bringing the particular land under the purview of the Municipal/Urban authority, the provision contained in Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act is very much applicable to the present case and therefore, contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the land originally belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. There is no dispute that basing upon an application under Section 8(A) of the O.L.R. Act, there has been conversion of the scheduled land from the status of agricultural to the status of homestead. This Court also finds that basing upon the conversion of the land, there is a building standing over the disputed property and at no point of time, any objection was being raised for construction of the building. 6. Considering the above, this Court finds the moot question to be considered herein is whether Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act has any application to the present case or not? From the pleadings of the respective parties and the arguments, this Court finds, firstly there is already a permission for conversion of the land applying the provision at Section 8(A) of the O.L.R. Act. From the document produced before this Court, this Court finds, their stands a Notification in the Orissa Gazettee dated 14th July, 1972 bringing a patch of land involving the disputed land to the fold of the urban town planning and the land is already included in the master plan for Sambalpur. There is no dispute to this aspect by the learned State Counsel. The only dispute as against this by the State is that such notification cannot be treated as a notification under Section 73 of the O.L.R. Act. 7. Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act as well as the Section 73 (C) of the O.L.R. Act since are relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the matter, the same read as follows: "22. 7. Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act as well as the Section 73 (C) of the O.L.R. Act since are relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the matter, the same read as follows: "22. Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes (1) [Any transfer] of holding or part thereof by a raiyat, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void except where it is in favour of - (a) A person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe; or (b) A person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe when such transfer is made with the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer : Provided that in case of a transfer by sale, the Revenue Officer shall not grant such permission unless he is satisfied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe willing to pay the market price for the land is not available, and in case of a gift unless he is satisfied about the bona fides thereof." xxx xxx xxx Section 73 (c) reads as follows : "(c) to any area which the Government may, from time to time by notification in the Official Gazettee specify as being reserved for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development or for any other specific purposes; and" 8. Now looking to the provision contained in Section 73 (C) of the Act, this becomes clear that the O.L.R. Act shall not be applicable to the lands to which the Government may from time to time by notification in Official Gazettee specify as being reserved for urban area xx xx xx etc. 9. Going through the Gazettee Notification dated 14th July, 1972, this Court finds, there remains no doubt that even though the notification did not refer to the provision under Section 73 of the O.L.R. Act but from the language therein, it is amply clear that the State Government by virtue of the notification has already included the land belonging to Sakhigopinath (part) revenue village which includes the land of the petitioner merged with the town planning authority, Sambalpur. This being the position, this Court finds, for the notification involved herein, the provision of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act have no application in the present case. 10. This being the position, this Court finds, for the notification involved herein, the provision of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act have no application in the present case. 10. Now coming to the decision cited at Bar, this Court finds, for the difference in the fact scenario that the disputed land has already become a homestead land by virtue of an order of conversion under the O.L.R. Act, particularly the land is no more available for being used or capable or being used for agricultural purpose within the municipal area and as this Court finds, the disputed land vis-a-vis the notification brings the land in the locality to the fold of the urban authority, the view of the registering authority is not appropriate and as such, there is no Bar for registering the instrument placed by the petitioner. The contentions of the petitioner in this regard and the view of this Court indicated herein above gets the support of a decision of this Court as reported in Vol.43(1977) CLT, 681 as a result of which while allowing the writ petition, this Court issues a mandamus to the registering authority-opposite party No. 3 for registering the instrument placed by the petitioner involved in the writ petition, which exercise be concluded within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. 11. The writ petition stands allowed but with the direction indicated herein above. Parties to bear their respective costs. Final Result : Allowed