The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court cannot interfere with the decisions of the Competent Authority under the Regulation, and the Suit was not maintainable as the issues had already been adjudicated and the decisions had attained finality.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2012 and 15.09.2012 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sundargarh in R.F.A. No. 12/36 of 2009-11. By the same, the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2009 and 19.03.2009 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Sundargarh, in C.S. No. 63 of 2006 have been confirmed.

This Appellant, as the Plaintiff, had filed the Suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession with further prayer to declare the entire proceeding and the decision rendered in a proceeding under the Odisha Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribe) Regulation, 1956 (hereinafter, for short called as 'the Regulation 2 of 1956') in Misc. Case. No. 4 of 1998 by the Officer on Special Duty (Land Reforms), Sundargarh arraigned as Defendant No. 3 as also the decision rendered in the Appeal proceeding by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh in R.A. No. 49 of 2002.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity as also to avoid confusion; the parties hereinafter have been referred to in the same rank as assigned to them in the original proceeding before the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff's case is that the suit land originally belonged to one Jayadev Kalo, the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is his case that said Jayadev Kalo, during his life time, had sold the land to two persons, namely, Harun Nag and Abdul Gony Ansari on 05.03.1955. Said Harun Nag had purchased the suit land measuring Ac. 0.06 decimals from Jayadev Kalo under one unregistered plain paper document for a consideration of Rs. 140/-. It is stated that from the date of said purchase, Harun Nag becoming the owner possessed the land in question. Later Harun Nag sold the suit land to the Plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed on 17.05.1961. Pursuant to the same, the Plaintiff possessed the suit land being its owner. When the matter stood thus, the Defendant No. 3 initiated a proceeding under the Regulation, 1956 vide Misc. Case No. 4 of 1998 against the Plaintiff and his vendor Harun Nag. The above action initiated was to evict them from suit land and restore the possession of the said land to the successor-in-interest of Jayadev Kalo. The proceeding finally ended with an order of eviction of the Plaintiff and his vendor Harun Nag followed by an order of restoration of possession of the suit land in favour of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The order being passed on 30.11.2002, the Plaintiff carried an Appeal as provided under Regulation 2 of 1956 to the Appellate Authority, i.e., Defendant No. 4. The Appeal being numbered as R.A. No. 49 of 2002, finally came to be dismissed. The order passed by the Defendant No. 3 thus stood confirmed. The Plaintiff being aggrieved by the said orders, challenged those by carrying writ petitions before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 8994 and 8995 of 2005. Those also stood dismissed. The Plaintiff thereafter filed Letters Patent Appeal vide W.A. No. 71 of 2005. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court on 19.12.2005 dismissed those Appeals. Thus, having failed in the attempts, the Suit was instituted praying for the reliefs as already stated.

4. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in whose favour the orders had been passed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in those proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1956, contested the Suit by filing their written statement and so also the Authorities acting under the Regulation 2 of 1956, i.e., Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed their written statements.

The case of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is that they are members of Scheduled Tribes community residing in the Schedule Area. Jayadev Kalo was there predecessor-in-interest. They denied the case of the Plaintiff that Jayadev Kalo had ever sold the suit land to Harun Nag, who is a mem