JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed assailing the orders under Annexures-1 & 2 passed by the competent authority under the Regulation-II of 1956. 2. Short background involved in the case is that at the first instance, the regulation-II proceeding vide Regulation-II Case No.24 of 1991 was initiated by one Bipin Dehuri against the present petitioner and her husband Banamali Patra. After death of Banamali Patra the petitioner is continuing with the case. One Dasarathi Dehuri for his legal necessity sold the disputed land measuring Ac.0.17 decimals Khata No.71, Plot No.201 in Mouza-Sripadganj in the town of Baripada to the petitioner for consideration of Rs.170/-in the year 1960 by virtue of an oral sale and possession of the land was delivered by the said Dasarathi Dehuri on the date after receiving the consideration amount and from the said date the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner were being occupying the land uninterruptedly for more than 41 years. Subsequently, a sale deed was also executed in the year 1963. The case history further discloses that after about 31 years after the sale of the disputed land and delivery of possession, Bipin Dehuri, S/o-Dasarathi Dehuri filed a Regulation-II Case bearing No.24 of 1991 for restoration of the disputed land on the premises that no such permission was obtained from the competent authority before the sale transaction is conducted. Petitioner appeared before the opposite party No.2 and filed her written objection making her claim that she had perfected her title by way of adverse possession. Regulation-II case No.24 of 1991 was dismissed on the premises that the sale transaction had taken place without having permission of the competent authority. The petitioner preferred Regulation-II appeal No.1 of 1995 before the opposite party No.1 and claimed for setting aside of the order passed by the original authority on the premises of her acquiring the title by way of adverse possession. The appeal was also dismissed confirming the direction of the original authority for restoration of the land in favour of the tribe persons. 3. The appeal was also dismissed confirming the direction of the original authority for restoration of the land in favour of the tribe persons. 3. Sri S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner objecting the reason and the findings assigned by both the authorities, submitted that the impugned orders are wrong for being passed in non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner over the disputed property for creation of a right in her favour by virtue of adverse possession and further the development through the R.O.R and the mutation proceeding have also not been taken into consideration by both the authorities. It is under the above premises, Sri S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contented that both the orders remained bad in law and ought to be interfered with and set aside. 4. Relying on some decisions as reported in AIR 2001 SC 393 , Vol.101(2006) CLT 20 (DB) and 1987 (1) OLR-263 (DB) Sri Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the decisions hereinabove have a great support to the petitioner’s case and further the claim that since the dispute involves as to whether the private opposite parties belong to scheduled tribe or not having not gone into by both the authorities, the impugned order should be interfered with and remitted back for a decision on such issue. 5. Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 contended that it appears from the pleadings all through that the entire claim of the petitioner and her husband was based on a right over the disputed property being created by virtue of adverse possession. Learned Additional Government Advocate next contended that for the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case in between Amarendra Pratap Singh vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors. as reported in AIR 2004 SCC 3782 no right involving the property of a scheduled tribe can be claimed by non-tribe taking the aid of adverse possession. Further, with regard to the objections of the petitioner as to whether the private opposite party belong to scheduled tribe or not for being not raised at any stage, the petitioner is precluded from raising such an objection in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India. Further, with regard to the objections of the petitioner as to whether the private opposite party belong to scheduled tribe or not for being not raised at any stage, the petitioner is precluded from raising such an objection in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India. It is under the above premises, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders leaving any scope for interfering in the same. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute with regard to the fact involved in the case that the predecessor of the private opposite parties were the original land owner involving the disputed property. There is also no dispute that there is a sale involving the disputed property through a sale deed in the year 1963 but the question remains here to be decided as to whether a non-tribe can raise a claim involving a tribe property on the premises of her right being created by virtue of adverse possession? And further in the event of not raising of an objection as to whether the private opposite parties and their predecessor belong to scheduled tribe having not being raised during the original proceeding and the appeal proceeding, such question if available to be raised in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Coming to decide the question No.1, this Court finds, the claim of the present petitioner alongwith her husband from the very beginning is on the basis of a sale deed and then a claim of right over the disputed property is made by virtue of adverse possession for their long possession over the disputed property. There is no dispute that there exists a sale deed. There is no dispute that there is no permission of the competent authority before the sale transaction is entered into. There is no dispute that the record of right also discloses the possession over the disputed property in respect of the present petitioner and her husband but looking to the proceeding under Section 3 of the Regulation II of 1956, it appears, no sale transaction or transfer of property belonging to a scheduled tribe is permissible in absence of a valid permission from the competent authority. It also appears that, the petitioner and her husband then shifted their claim on the basis of their right being created by virtue of adverse possession involving a tribe property. In absence of a valid permission from the competent authority, the sale and the subsequent developments through R.O.R are all redundant. 7. Coming back to the claim of the petitioner on the basis of adverse possession, this Court finds, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case in between Amarendra Pratap Singh vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors. as reported in AIR 2004 SCC 3782 in clear terms held that entertaining the plea of adverse possession involving the Tribe property by Non-Tribes will frustrate the purpose of Regulation-II of 1956 and no transfer involving the Tribe property is permissible on the basis of creation of a right through adverse possession. For the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds, claim of a non-tribe regarding right over the property on the basis of adverse possession is legally impermissible. Hence the authorities below did no wrong in dismissing the claim of the petitioner on the basis of a right through adverse possession. Coming back to the question No.2, this Court finds, there is no pleading on the question if the private opposite parties belong to the scheduled tribe or not in the original proceedings, in absence of which the petitioner was estopped to take such a surprise plea in appeal. Be that as it may, since the petitioner raised such an objection in the appeal, nothing prevented the appellants to satisfy their claim in this regard and the appellants therein are not justified in shifting the burden on the private opposite party. Under the circumstance, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned orders. As a result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost.