JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - This writ petition is against the order dated 22.5.1993, under Annexure-4, passed by the Revenue Officer, order dated 13.5.1994 passed by the Additional District Magistrate vide Annexure-5 and the order dated 29.7.1995 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue available under Annexure-7 involving a proceeding under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960. 2. In assailing the aforesaid impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that her vendor, Mala Dei, executed the sale deed representing that she obtained necessary permission for sale of the disputed land in O.L.R. Case No. 75 of 1972 and promised to produce the certified copy of the order granting permission, as it was not available at the point of time of the registration of the sale deed. Later, on inquiry, it revealed that the permission for sale of the disputed land was accorded on 24.7.1972, though applied on 28.2.1972, whereas sale deed involving disputed property was executed on 3.3.1972. Following the execution of the sale deed, the petitioner also got the land mutated in her name in the record-of-right after due publication in the locality. Mala Dei never disputed sale in her favour nor has her son also ever challenged the same. It is thus contended by Miss. Mira Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no illegality in the purchase of the land by the petitioner. Further, since it was supported with a promise by the vendor that she has already obtained a permission from the competent authority for sale of the disputed land and for which even if there is violation of Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act for the false promise by the petitioner at the relevant time along with existence of the fact that there was already application for permission pending at the time of sale and that the permission for sale was also granted by the competent authority immediately after the sale, the entire action should be treated as bona fide and the petitioner should not be made to suffer. The Courts below have failed in appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter and all erred in holding that the sale was invalid for being violative of Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act. The petitioner also took a alternate plea submitting that in worst case, the petitioner will be entitled to get the benefit of Section 43 of the T.P. Act. The petitioner also took a alternate plea submitting that in worst case, the petitioner will be entitled to get the benefit of Section 43 of the T.P. Act. In support of her case, the petitioner relied on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Harekrushna Samal And Ors. Vs. Kashi Mallik And Ors, AIR 1997 Orissa 43. 3. In opposition, both the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the private opposite parties, while objecting to each of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that keeping in view the mandatory provision in Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act and for the admitted situation that the permission for sale of the disputed land was granted subsequent to the execution of the sale deed, the sale becomes invalid and it is in these premises, the Courts below have not committed any illegality, consequently leaving no cope for interfering in the impugned orders. 4. Undisputed facts remain that one Smt. Mala Dei was the owner of the disputed land. Smt. Mala Dei was a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community whereas the petitioner belongs to General caste community. Smt. Mala Dei had sought for permission for sale of the disputed land on 28.2.1972 by filing O.L.R. Case No. 75 of 1972. Sale deed in respect of the disputed land was executed on 3.3.1972 whereas permission for sale of the land vide O.L.R. Case No. 75 of 1972 was granted on 24.6.1972 and the proceeding under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act was initiated in the month of April, 1993 by the present opposite party no. 3. By the impugned orders, the Courts below have held the sale as invalid for being contrary to the provision of Section 23 of the Act. 5. Under the fact situation, narrated hereinabove, it is now to be seen as to whether the permission for sale of land being applied ahead of the sale deed and the permission being granted after the execution of the sale deed if validate such sale deeds? Provision under Sections 22 and 23 of the O.L.R. Act has a relevancy in the matter and the same reads as herein under: “22. Provision under Sections 22 and 23 of the O.L.R. Act has a relevancy in the matter and the same reads as herein under: “22. Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes- (1) Any transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void except where it is in favor of (a) 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. (2) The State Government may having regard to the law and custom applicable to any area prior to the date of commencement of this Act by notification direct that the restrictions provided in subSection (1) shall not apply to lands situated in such area or belonging to any particular tribe throughout the State or in any part of it. (3) Except with the written permission of the Revenue Officer, no such holding shall be sold in execution of a decree to any person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. (4) Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force where any document required to be registered under the provisions of clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 purports to effect transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in favor of a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document, unless such document is accompanied by the written permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer. (5) The provisions contained in sub-Sections (1) to (4) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the transfer of a holding or part thereof of a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Caste. (5) The provisions contained in sub-Sections (1) to (4) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the transfer of a holding or part thereof of a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Caste. (6) Nothing in this Section shall apply- (a) to any sale in execution of a money decree passed, or to any transfer by way of mortgage executed, in favour of any scheduled bank or in favour of any bank to which the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 applies; and (b) to any transfer by a member of a Scheduled Tribe within a Scheduled Area. 23. Effect of transfer in contravention of Section 22-(1) in the case of any transfer in contravention of the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 22 the Revenue Officer on his own information or on, the application of any person interested in the land may issue notice in the prescribed manner calling upon the transferor and transferee to show cause why the transfer should not be declared invalid. (2) After holding such inquiry as the Revenue Officer deems fit an after hearing the persons interested, he may declare such transfer to be invalid and impose on the transferee a penalty of an amount not exceeding two hundred rupees per acre of the land so transferred for each year or any part thereof during which the possession is continued in pursuance of the transfer which has been declared to be invalid and may also order such portion of the penalty as he deems fit, to be paid to the transferor of his heir. (3) On a declaration being made under sub-Section (2) the Revenue Officer suo motu or on the application of any person interested cause restoration of the property to the transferor or his heirs and for the purpose may take such steps as may be necessary for compliance with the said order or preventing any breach of peace; Provided that if the Revenue Officer is of the opinion that the restoration of the property is not reasonably practicable, he shall record his reasons therefore and shall, subject to the control of the Government, settle the said property with another member of a Scheduled Tribe or in the absence of any such member, with any other person in accordance with the provisions contained in the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962.” 6. Reading of both the aforesaid provisions make it clear that the law mandates sale of land belonging to Scheduled Caste to a person belonging to outside caste must be followed with a permission for sale of such land from the competent authority follwing Section 23 of the Act. This aspect has got the attraction of this Court previously and deciding the case standing in similar situation in a case in between Karunakar Gond and another vs. Pitabas Sahu and others, 1996 (i) OLR 14, this Court in a Division Bench has come to hold that any transfer of land belonging to Scheduled Category to General Caste category without compliance of the provision of Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act makes the transaction null and void. This is also the view of this Court in another case in between Baidhar Behera vs. The Special Officer, O.L.R., Central Division and others, 1990(1) O.L.R., 369 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has also the view that any transaction of land belonging to Scheduled Caste category in favor of general caste in absence of the compliance of the requirement under Section 22 makes such sale deed invalid. Now, considering the decision cited by learned counsel petitioner in the case of Harekrushna Samal And Ors. Vs. Kashi Mallik and Ors. (supra), this Court observes that the Full Bench decision was on a different relevance and as such, the same has no application to the petitioner’s case. Keeping in view the settled position of law of this Court enunciated in the cases of Karunakar Gond and another vs. Pitabas Sahu and others and Baidahr Behera vs. The Special Officer, O.L.R., Central Division and others and keeping in view the mandate required under Section 22, this Court finds the sale involving the petitioner and the predecessor of the opposite party no.4 remained invalid and under the circumstances, this Court finds no illegality has been committed by either of the authorities in passing the impugned orders vide Annexures- 4, 5 and 7. Now, so far as the petitioner’s claim for application of Section 43, it is observed that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude taking shelter of any other law, if he is so advised and any such proceeding shall be decided on its own merit and in accordance with law. Now, so far as the petitioner’s claim for application of Section 43, it is observed that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude taking shelter of any other law, if he is so advised and any such proceeding shall be decided on its own merit and in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition fails, however, there is no order as to cost. Petition fails.