JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. This writ application is directed against the orders passed by the authorities directing eviction of the present petitioner in exercise of power Under Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.
2. It appears that Revenue Misc. Case No. 11/91 was started suo motu by the Sub-Collector-cum-Revenue Officer, Sonepur, Under Section 23-A, of the Orissa Land Reforms Act on the basis of the report of the Welfare Extension Officer. Tarbha, wherein it was stated that the lands belongs to Bhima Ganda, original opposite party No. 1 in the present writ application (since substituted by the legal representatives). It was reported that the present petitioner had remained in possession from 1985. The present petitioner after receipt of notice filed objection stating that he is in possession of the disputed land since 1943 and as such the proceeding Under Section 23-A is not maintainable.
3. It is not disputed that the land was initially Chaukidar Jagir land of opposite party No. 1 and subsequently after coming into force of the Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, 1964, the land vested in the State Government and subsequently it was settled on raiyati basis with opposite party No. 1 by the order dated 28.8.1968 and Patta was issued on 25.7.1970. The authorities who have decided the matter have not come to any clear-cut finding as to the date since when the petitioner had remained in possession. Even assuming that the petitioner was in possession from 1943 and his possession was adverse to that of the owner, namely, original opposite party No. 1, Bhima Ganda, the very fact that the land had been settled with Bhima Ganda in a proceeding under the Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act. created a new title in favour of original opposite party No. 1 and adverse possession, if any, of the present petitioner prior to the date of settlement of the land with opposite party No. 1 would be of no avail. However, if the petitioner continued in possession in spite of limitation would start and such possession would continue to be adverse and after expiry of twelve years of such adverse possession, right of opposite party No. 1 would be lost keeping in view the principle envisaged Under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. Initially, in the Orissa Land Reforms Act, there was no provision for recovery of possession from person in unauthorised occupation of land belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and the remedy was to file appropriate civil suit. However, in the year 1976, under Orissa Act 44 of 1976 by way of amendment provision was introduced in shape of Section 23-A which prescribed for filing application for initiation of proceeding Under Section 23-A for recovery of possession from a person in unauthorised possession of land of a raiyati belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. However, the period of limitation available under the Limitation Act had not been changed. As such, it was held in series of cases that if a person remains in unauthorised occupation for a period of more than twelve years, the right of the original owner is lost. (See, 62 (1986) CLT 281 (Siani Nag v. Gobardhan Ganda and Ors). Subsequently, Section 23-B was introduced in the year 1991 under Orissa Act 8 of 1991 where the period of limitation became thirty years. However, if any person had already perfected his title by adverse possession by the time of incorporation of Section 23-B in the Orissa Land Reforms Act. his right acquired by way of adverse possession is not defeated by such subsequent provision enhancing the period of limitation. This position is clear in view of the decision reported 65 (1988) CLT 360 (Madhia Nayak v. Arjuna Pradhan and Ors). Though this decision was rendered with reference to a similar provision contained in Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable. Similar view has been expressed in the decision of this Court reported in 71 (1991) CLT 281 (Butu Naik v. Ainla Naikani and Anr). In fact, in view of the observations made in the latter decision pointing out the anomally relating to provision of limitation applicable Under Section 23, and Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the Legislature thought it fit to subsequently amend the provision by introducing Section 23-B.
4. A perusal of the orders passed by the revenue authorities makes it clear that they have not kept in view the position of law as enunciated above. In such view of the matter, the orders passed by the authorities are quashed and the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Opportunity of adducing further evidence by the parties shall be given by the Tahsildar. The parties are directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 4th September, 2000. If it is found that the present petitioner has remained in possession from 1968 onwards notwithstanding the order of settlement, the proceeding Under Section 23-A must be rejected. If, on the other hand, it is found that the petitioner had not completed 12 years of adverse possession by the date of coming into force of amended Section 23-B, then appropriate order regarding recovery of possession can be issued.
5. The writ application is accordingly allowed subject to the directions given above. There will be no order as to costs.