The amended period of limitation under Section 23-B(2) of the OLR Act applies only to proceedings initiated by the Revenue Authorities under Sections 23-A or 23-B, and a non-tribal person cannot claim title by adverse possession over the land of a tribal person.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Parichha, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal against the Judgment of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar passed in T.A. No. 21/95/14 of 1996 confirming the Judgment and decree recorded by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Keonjhar in T.S. No. 15 of 1991.

2. The present Respondent as Plaintiff filed the suit claiming title over the suit land on the plea that he purchased the same from the recorded tenant by means of Ext. 1 and possessed it thereafter. On the other hand, the Defendant claimed that he is in possession of Ac. 0.10 decimals put of the purchased land of the Plaintiff by constructing house thereon since more than 50 years and thereby has acquired title over the same by adverse possession. The Trial Court decreed the right, title of the Plaintiff over the suit land and also ruled that he is entitled to recover possession of the suit land along with house constructed thereon. The said decree was confirmed in the appeal and hence the present second appeal.

3. The following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration in this appeal.

(i) Whether the observation of the first Appellate Court that in view of the amendment in Section 23-B(2) of the OLR Act the Defendant has to prove his adverse possession over the suit land for a period of 30 years is legally correct?

(ii) Whether the observation in the impugned Judgment that the Appellant is not a man belonging to the Scheduled Tribe is an error on record and such finding has materially affected the result of the appeal?

4. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the amended period of limitation provided in Section 23-B(2) of the OLR Act is applicable only to the proceedings under Sections 23-A and 23-B of the OLR Act and not to the cases under the civil law and other laws. According to him, in suits filed before Civil Court, the period of limitation as contemplated under the Limitation Act will apply and therefore, the Appellant having already remained in continuous, open and hostile possession for more than 12 years had acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In support of his stand, he relies on the cases of Butu Naik v. Ainla Naikani and Anr. 71 (1991) C.L.T. 281, Goutam Kumar Mohapatra alias Barik Vs. Kara Patra and Others, and Trilochan Dandsena and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Others, Mr. Mohanty also argued that the decree of the Appellate Court clearly shows that the Appellant is a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and therefore the first Appellate Court committed error on record in saying that the Appellant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. He states that once both the parties belong to Scheduled Tribe, there is no question of any bar of acquiring in title by adverse possession by one of the parties. In this regard, he relied on the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Ors. 98 (2004) CLT 19in paragraph-27 of the Judgment. Mr. S.S. Das, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned Judgment and states that not only the amended period of limitation of Section 23-B in the matter of adverse possession is applicable, but in view of the ruling of the Apex Court in Amrendra Pratap Singh (supra) a non-tribal person can never acquire title over the land of a tribal person by way of adverse possession irrespective of the length of his possession over that property. Mr. Das states that whether the Appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe or not is a question of fact and evidence and the matter is not open for discussion in the second appeal.

5. Before entering into the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the parties, it will be beneficial to recount the provisions of Sections 23-A and 23-B of the OLR Act:

23.A. Eviction of person in unauthorized occupation of property-where any person is found to be in authorized occupation of the whole or part of a holding of