JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J. - The petitioners call in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 19.4.1997 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Gen.), Koraput, opposite party no.6, in OSATIPA No.22/95. By the said order, opposite party no.6 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 27.3.95 passed by the Tahasildar, Jeypore, opposite party no.5, in OSATIP No.21/93, whereby and where under opposite party no.5 allowed the application filed by the opposite party nos.1 to 3 under para 3-A of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956") and restored possession of the land to the opposite party nos.1 to 3.

2. Opposite party no.1 along with predecessor of opposite party nos.2 and 3 filed an application under para 3-A of Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 before the Sub-Collector, Jeypore, opposite party no.4, for restoration of land, which was registered as OSATIP Case No.21 of 1993. It is stated that the opposite parties are the absolute owner of the schedule property. But then the petitioners are in forcible possession of the land since five years. Pursuan