ORDER

6.1.2004 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels appearing for each of opposite parties 1 and 2 so also learned Standing Counsel and the writ petition stands disposed of in the following manner.

2. Opposite Party No. 1 filed in application under Regula¬tion 3-A of Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (in short ‘the Regula¬tion’) claiming that she is the owner of the property of Plot No. 28 in Mouza Bentakarpada measuring an area of Ac. 1.40 decimals on the basis of registered deed of sale executed on 19.3.1987 by the true owner i.e., the opposite party No. 2. Since her husband is serving outside the Mouza, she went and stayed with him and taking advantage of her absence the writ petitioner laid a false claim, initiated Mutation Case No. 634 of 1991 and got mutated in his favour an area of Ac.1.15 decimals from that plot i.e., the Schedule ‘B’ land and on that basis he is in illegal and unau¬thorised occupation of the Schedule ‘B’ land. Accordingly she prayed for eviction of the petitioner and restoration of posses¬sion of Schedule ‘B’ property in her favour in accordance with the provision in Regulation 3-A of the Regulation. Opposite party No. 2 i.e., the vendor of the opposite party No. 1 did not con¬test the case. Petitioner contested that case advancing a con¬flicting clam of right, title and interest and validity of the order of Mutation. On consideration of contention of the parties, in Regulation II Case No.1 of 1999, learned Sub-Collector, Pan¬chapir, Karanjia on 11.9.2000 recorded the finding that petition¬er is in unauthorised occupation of the land and, the same should be restored to the opposite party No. 1. He further observed that the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner being illegal, therefore, if the opposite party No. 1 applies appropriately then the ‘B’ Schedule land be recorded in her favour. Petitioner preferred Regulation II Appeal No. 6 of 2000 in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj as against the above noted order. The appellate Court after a threadbare discussion of the facts, evidence and contention of the parties recorded his concurrence to the finding and conclusion to the order of the Sub-Collector.

3. It appears from the order of the appellate Court that both the parties afresh filed documents in support of their respective contention and that includes the registered sale deed of the year 1987 on which the opposite party No. 1 relies and the registered deed of sale of the year 1965 on which the petitioner relies. The appellate Court on due reference to such registered sale deeds, corresponding settlement entries of the relevant plots, corresponding revenue records and Amin Bother etc. record¬ed the finding that the land purchased by the petitioner in 1965 is not the same land which the opposite party No. 1 claims to be her and seeks for recover. Learned Addl. District Magistrate recorded the finding that opposite party No. 1 purchased Ac. 1.40 decimals, vide Hal Plot No.28 of Hal Khata No. 26, corresponding Sabik Khata No. 28 and Sabik Plot No. 47/129. On the other hand, petitioner purchased Ac. 1.84 decimals vide Hal Plot No. 29 and Hal Khata No. 27, corresponding to Sabik Khata No. 30 and Plot No. 47/131.

4. While challenging to the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner filed Amin Bother and the position of the case land respecting the plot no. and Khata no. in the Sabik and Hal settlements, as noted in that Amin Bother, is different than the conclusion derived by the Courts below. He argues that notwithstanding such circumstance learned Addl. District Magistrate neither rejected the evidentiary value nor considered implication and acceptability of that document and arrived at a wrong conclusion. He further argues that in course of enquiry in the Mutation Proceeding the Tahasildar after being satisfied about identity of the present disputed case l