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