JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned orders vide Annexures-1 to 3 passed by the Authorities under the O.L.R Act. 2. In assailing the impugned orders, Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following legal points: Firstly, since the transaction involved in the dispute relates to purchase of a land by a non-tribe from a tribe on 13.1.1965, the O.L.R. Act having come into force on 1.10.1965, the requirement of prior permission under the O.L.R. Act has no application. The second limb of submission of Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the earlier proceedings involving the same transaction and having reached its finality, the subsequent proceedings were all hit by principle of res-judicata. 3. In opposition, learned State Counsel defending the impugned orders submitted that even though the provisions of Section 22 &23 of the O.L.R. Act have no application to the present case but the provisions of Orissa Merge States (Laws) Act prevailing at the relevant time having a provision for permission before transfer of land from Tribe to Non-Tribe is very much applicable to the case and therefore, the Courts below have not committed any illegality and the impugned orders are therefore, very much sustained. 4. Short background involved in this case is that, one Pandru Ganda purchased the land from the ancestors of the petitioners as well as opposite party Nos.6 & 7. All of them are ‘Kandha’ by caste but looking to the date of transaction, a claim was made by the petitioner that there was no permission required at the relevant point of time. Hence, the sale transaction entered in between the parties without obtaining any permission from any of the authority becomes bad. 5. It is at this point of time, a proceeding under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act by the predecessor interest of opposite party Nos.4 & 5 seeking eviction against the father of the petitioner, who was then alive and in possession of the disputed land was initiated. The case was registered as Land Revenue Case No.8/74 of 1973. This case was dismissed. Consequently, the unsuccessful petitioners filed appeal in the Court of the A.D.M., Bolangir, which was registered as O.L.R. Appeal No.11 of 1974. This Appeal was dismissed. The case was registered as Land Revenue Case No.8/74 of 1973. This case was dismissed. Consequently, the unsuccessful petitioners filed appeal in the Court of the A.D.M., Bolangir, which was registered as O.L.R. Appeal No.11 of 1974. This Appeal was dismissed. No revision was filed as against the same and the order passed by the Original Authority remains final. 6. From the pleadings, it further appears that one Hema Majhimother of the opposite party Nos.4 & 5, the person initiated the above proceeding, also filed a Suit before the Munsif, Titilagarh for declaration of her right, title and interest over the case land with a prayer for recovery of possession, which was registered as T.S. No.11 of 1976 and was also decreed on contest. The defendants therein preferred an Appeal. The appeal was decreed by reversing the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.11 of 1976 and the judgment and decree attained its finality for not being challenged any further by the aggrieved parties. The mother of the opposite party Nos.4 & 5 after long lapse of time and after the amended provisions under Section 23-A came into force, initiated a fresh proceeding before the Sub-Collector on the selfsame reason and requested for recovery of the land from the petitioner to their possession. This Case was registered as Revenue Misc. Case No.8/A/1 of 1977. This Case was contested by the petitioner and the Revenue Misc. Case numbered above was ultimately allowed on contest on 9.2.1978. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred and registered as O.L.R. Appeal No.52 of 1978. The appellate Authority-the A.D.M., Bolangir confirmed the order passed by the lower Court. A revision was also preferred which was registered as Revision No.14/79/38 of 1983. The revision was also dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed against the above orders. Sole question involved here to be decided that since the purchase of the land had taken effect on 13.1.1965 taking into consideration the submission made by the respective counsel it is to be seen whether the provisions contained in Orissa Merge States’ (Laws) Act and the provisions under the OLR Act are applicable to the present circumstances. There is no dispute that the sale of the land had taken place on 13.1.1965. There is no dispute that the sale of the land had taken place on 13.1.1965. The O.L.R. Act came into effect from 1.10.1965 even though coming to effect on receiving the assent of Hon’ble President on 17th October, 1960 but the provisions contained in Sections 22 & 23 have all come into effect on 1.10.1965 by virtue of Orissa Act 13 of 1965 thereby restricting transfer of land from Scheduled Tribe to Non-Scheduled Tribe without permission from competent authority after 1.10.1965. 8. Considering the submissions made by the State Counsel that even though the O.L.R. Act had no application to the present case but the sale taking effect on 13.1.1965 was hit by the provisions contained in Orissa Merge States’ (Laws) Act. This Court observes that the Orissa Merge State’ (Laws) Act stood repealed in view of the coming into force of the Regulation 2 of 1956 the provision if any, contained under the Orissa Merge State’ (Laws) Act consequently, stood repealed since 1956. 9. In view of the legal position indicated hereinabove and the prohibition of sale without permission of competent authority having came into effect on 1.10.1965 and the transaction having taken place on 13.1.1965, this transaction is not hit by either of the provisions under the Orissa Merge States’ (Laws) Act or the provision contained under the O.L.R. Act, 1960. A similar situation also arose for consideration of this Court and this Court in a Division Bench in a Case in between Anadi Mohanta (deed) and after him Kointa Mohanta and others Versus State of Orissa and others as reported in 1989 (II) OLR 115 observed that the amended Act have no applications to the transactions taken place prior to the OLR Act came into force. Under the circumstances, this Court finds all the proceedings vide Annexures-1, 2 & 3 are bad in law. Consequently, this Court sets aside the impugned orders vide Annexures-1, 2 & 3 and allows the writ petition. Parties to bear their own cost.