JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.01.1994 passed by the Collector, Balangir in O.L.R. Revision Case No.35 of 1986, more particularly challenging the application of the provisions of O.L.R. Act on the homestead land situates within the area of Notified Area Council, Titilagarh. 2. Short back ground involved in the case is that petitioner had purchased the disputed land measuring an area A0.17 decimals corresponding to plot No.901/1188 in Khata No.53 vide registered sale deed dated 15.01.1974 for a consideration of Rs.5000/-. Petitioner had obtained a plan for construction of Textile Mill on the purchased land and got the plan approved by the Executive Officer, N.A.C, Titilagarh in the year 1974. Petitioner started a Power Loom establishment through the constructed Textile Mill. This land was recorded as GHARABARI-2 in the year 1976 basing on the report dated 29.11.1975 of the Settlement Amin. After long gap of ten years of the purchase, the Opp. Party No.1 initiated a proceeding under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act before the Revenue Officer, Titilagarh challenging the transfer of land as illegal for having taken place without prior permission of the Revenue Officer as the case land originally belonged to a Scheduled Caste person and sold to the person outside the caste. The case was registered as RMC Case No.8/35 of 1984. The petitioner field show cause contending therein that the Opp. Party No.01 is not a Scheduled Caste person and the land in dispute is a house site in urban area resulting the provision of O.L.R Act has no application. RMC Case No.8/35 of 1984 was disposed of in favour of Opp. Party No.1 holding transfer of land without obtaining permission from the competent authority, as void. The order being challenged in O.L.R Appeal No.20 of 1986, the Additional District Magistrate, Balangir allowed the appeal observing that the provision of O.L.R. Act has no application as the land in dispute being homestead under urban area. The appeal order being assailed in revision vide O.L.R. Revision No.35 of 1986, the Collector Balangir allowed the revision in favour of Opp. Party No.1 reversing the order passed by the appellate authority and thereby confirming the order passed by the original authority – (Revenue Officer) . On being aggrieved by the revisional order, thereby confirming the original order, Mr. The appeal order being assailed in revision vide O.L.R. Revision No.35 of 1986, the Collector Balangir allowed the revision in favour of Opp. Party No.1 reversing the order passed by the appellate authority and thereby confirming the order passed by the original authority – (Revenue Officer) . On being aggrieved by the revisional order, thereby confirming the original order, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed land being situated within the urban area and for change of status of the land to GHARABARI, the provision of O.L.R Act had no application. The original authority as well as the revisional authority having failed to understand the above legal aspect, committed illegality and both the orders passed by the original authority as well as revisional authority are not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.1 in opposition to the submissions of Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provision contained in Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act is not only restricted to non-urban lands but the Act has also its application to the scheduled areas. Since entire Titilagarh is coming under the scheduled area, the Act has the application over the disputed land. Similarly there is also no exclusion of the provision from the homestead land. Looking to the provision of Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960, it is only to be seen as to if any transaction concerning the land belonging to Scheduled Caste has been made in contravention of Section 22 of the Act without obtaining the permission of the competent authority for sale. No permission having been obtained prior to sale, being effected between the parties, the sale transaction is void and the provision of Section 23 of the Act is very much attracted to the present case. In the premises, Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No. 1 contended that neither the original authority nor the revisional authority have committed any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned orders. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer. 4. Mr. S.Das, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand while supporting the stand taken by Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No. 1 contended that neither the original authority nor the revisional authority have committed any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned orders. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer. 4. Mr. S.Das, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand while supporting the stand taken by Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Opp. party No. 1 also contended that as the provision of Sections 22 and 23 of the O.L.R. Act are applicable to the present case, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, leaving any scope for interfering in the impugned order. 5. Leaving aside the admitted facts that the land situates within the area of Notified Area Council, Titilagarh, the petitioner had purchased the disputed land measuring an area A0.17 decimals corresponding to plot No.901/1188 in Khata No.53 vide registered sale dead dated 15.01.1974 from the Opp. party No.1, the plan for the construction of Textile Mill of the petitioner was approved by the Executive Officer, Titilagarh NAC in the year 1974, final settlement record of the year 1976 reflects the land as GHARABARI-2 and that the petitioner is running a Power Loom establishment over the constructed area and that the petitioner has lost in the original case as well as in the revision case , this court finds the moot question to be considered here is as to whether the sale of land by virtue of registered sale deed and for the status of land being GHARABARI, the provision of sections 22 and 23 of the O.L.R. Act have any application to the present case or not. 6. Sections 22 and 23 of the O.L.R. Act read as follows: “22. 6. Sections 22 and 23 of the O.L.R. Act read as follows: “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 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. (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 favour 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 and 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 or his heir. (3) On a declaration being made under subsection (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 there for 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. Reading of both the above provisions together with definition of agricultural land vide Section 2(1) and Section 2(12) leaves no doubt that the provisions of Sections 22 & 23 of the O.L.R. Act are applicable to both agricultural as well as homestead provided the land comes under the Schedule area. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the land is coming within the Schedule area. 7. Now coming to examine, if the sale between the petitioner and Opp. party No.1 on 15.01.1974 is hit by the provisions of O.L.R. Act. Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act restricts alienation of land belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the schedule area without prior permission being obtained from the competent authority applying provision of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act. From and on the introduction of Section 22 of the Act, the sale involved in the present case having taken place on15.01.1974 and having been made without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority, the transaction becomes void. 8. Now looking to the fact that basing on the sale, not only the status of the land has been changed in the mean time to that of homestead (Gharabari) but the petitioner has also in the meantime obtained plan approval from the Executive Officer, Titlagarh N.A.C for construction of Textile Mill over the disputed site and after construction is over, the petitioner running a Power Loom establishment thereon that too after investing a huge amount, it is now to be considered as to whether an eviction at this stage is permissible ? 9. Faced with similar situation in the matter of the land belonging to Scheduled Tribe and for the developments taken place in between, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between Amarendra Pratap Singh -vrs-Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others, reported in AIR-2004 (SC) -3782 came to hold that claim of right by way of adverse possession in respect of the land belonging to Scheduled Tribe, is not sustainable. But coming to the question of appropriate relief i.e. to be granted to the land owner, keeping in view the developments taken place in between with the consent of the parties particularly the land owner, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed for an investigation by the trial court to find out the portion of land in occupation by a non-scheduled tribe person and upon investigation, may pass a decree for awarding suitable compensation in lieu of demolition and restoration of possession. 10. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case and as this Court in the present case finds that the petitioner has already made a lot of developments over the disputed land that too with the consent of the actual land owner and further with the approval of the public authority instead of asking for restoration of possession, this Court directs the original authority (Revenue Officer, Titlagarh) to conduct an enquiry through its agency to ascertain the actual occupation of the land by a person belonging to general caste by virtue of sale over which the construction of the Textile Mill has been made and taking into consideration the present market price of the land prevailing in the locality, to pass an order to grant appropriate compensation to the Opp. party No.1. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment. 11. Writ petition stands allowed with the observation and direction made hereinabove. Parties to bear their respective cost.