JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This is a writ application filed assailing the impugned orders under Annexures-2 & 3. 2. Short background involved in this case is that a Suo Motu O.L.R. Case No.10/90 was started on the file of the Revenue Officer on the basis of a report submitted by the Welfare Extension Officer, Laxmanpur on the allegation that the disputed land was transferred by the father of O.P.1, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe, without permission, as contemplated under Section 22 of the of the O.L.R. Act. The suo motu proceeding, vide O.L.R. Case No.10/90 was decided in favour of the original petitioner taking into consideration the petitioner’s possession, who got his right over the disputed property by way of adverse possession. The original order being challenged in appeal, the appeal has been decided against the petitioner and following a revision being O.L.R. Revision No.6/96, the revision was also decided against the petitioner confirming the judgment of the appellate authority. 3. Assailing the order of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, Sri Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that in view of existence of an agreement for sale prior to the O.L.R. Act came into force, there was no requirement of permission for entering into sale deed concerning the disputed property in the year 1967 and further, the question of the petitioner’s accruing right over the disputed property by virtue of adverse possession taking into consideration the whole possession of the predecessor and the original petitioner over the disputed land has not been properly appreciated by both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. Under the circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioners, prayed for interfering in the impugned orders and restoring the order of the original authority. 4. Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for O.P.1, on the other hand, submitted that the sale deed being entered into in the year 1967 after coming into force of the O.L.R. Act and for involvement of the property of a Scheduled Tribe in the sale transaction, permission is mandatory. 4. Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for O.P.1, on the other hand, submitted that the sale deed being entered into in the year 1967 after coming into force of the O.L.R. Act and for involvement of the property of a Scheduled Tribe in the sale transaction, permission is mandatory. Further looking to the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh vrs Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 3782 , law is well settled that there cannot be a claim of adverse possession in respect of property of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and under the circumstance, Sri Mohanty, claimed that the order passed by the trial court is erroneous and the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are justified. 5. Sri S. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel, supporting the submission made by Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for O.P.1, also contended that the right of the petitioner suffers on both counts; firstly, for not obtaining permission from the competent authority before entering into the sale transaction and secondly, for the settled position of law, the petitioners’ claim of right over the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession is not sustainable. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly, the property originally belongs to Scheduled Tribe and there is no dispute that by virtue of the agreement under Ext. A, the parties have entered into an agreement for sale on 21.7.52 for sale of the disputed property after receipt of Rs.1000/- as consideration money. There is also no dispute that the agreement for sale was reduced to sale deed in the year 1967. O.L.R. Act came into force in the year 1965 bringing in the provision of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, which compelled obtaining of permission from the competent authority in the event of sale of property from Tribes to non-Tribes. Since the sale deed was executed in the year 1967, this Court finds, the petitioners’ claim for no requirement of permission from the competent authority, in view of existence of an agreement for sale is not sustainable. The provision contained in Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act is mandatory. Therefore, the sale deed of the year 1967 remains void. Since the sale deed was executed in the year 1967, this Court finds, the petitioners’ claim for no requirement of permission from the competent authority, in view of existence of an agreement for sale is not sustainable. The provision contained in Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act is mandatory. Therefore, the sale deed of the year 1967 remains void. Further looking to the claim of the petitioner on the question of admission by way of adverse possession following the decision in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh (supra), this Court finds, law is well settled, restricting the right in favour of non-Tribe or non-Caste involving the properties of Scheduled Tribe by way of adverse possession. The writ application fails on both the counts. 7. Perused the impugned orders, vide Annexures-2 & 3. Perusal of the said orders, this Court finds, there is no illegality committed by both the appellate as well as revisional courts in deciding the matter against the petitioners. This Court also finds no illegality in the said impugned orders. For the findings arrived at herein above and as this Court finds no error in the impugned orders, this writ petition has no merit. Consequently, the writ application stands dismissed. No order as to cost.