BURULU RAMALU Vs. MUKUNDA RAIPATRA (DEAD) AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE core question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the application for restoration of the disputed property filed by the predecessor -in -jauntiest of opposite Parties 1(a) to 1(d) under provisions of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immoveable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (Regulation -2 of 1956) was maintainable.

(2.) THE proceeding was initiated in 1976 suo motu by the opposite party No. 2, Officer on Special Duty under Regulation II of 1956 at Parlekhemundi to restore the disputed property transferred by Mukunda Raipatra, the predecessor -in -interest of opposite parties 1(a) to 1(d), a member of the scheduled tribe to the writ Petitioner Burulu Ramllu who is not a member of the scheduled tribe. Previously another proceeding had been initiated before the opposite party No. 2 in 1971 for restoration of the self -same property which was rejected by the authority on the ground that the transfer in question having been made on 25 -6 -1954 prior to enforcement of Regulation II of 1956 was not hit by the provisions made therein. After certain provisions of the Regulations were amended in 1975 the suo motu proceeding from which this writ petition arises was initiated in 1978 and by the order dated 26 -12 -1978 as per Annexure -4 the opposite party No. 2 directed the Petitioner to restore the disputed property to the opposite party No. 1. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the writ application seeking to quash the said order. On perusal of the impugned order (Annexure -4), it appears that the authority particularly relied upon the amended provisions in Section 7 -D of the Regulation in support of his order. The provision reads as follows:

(3.) SRI Padhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenges the order submitting that the provision of Section 7 -D though introduced in the Regulation in 1975 was given retrospective effect from 2nd October, 1973. But long prior to that, the writ Petitioner had perfected his title to the land by adverse possession since the transfer of the property was made by unregistered sale deed on 25 -6 -1954 and possession of the vendee was adverse from the very inception. Sri Padhi further contends that the right vested in the writ Petitioner after expiry of 12 years from the date of transfer could not be taken heavy by virtue of the amendment in Section 7 -0 of the Regulation.