in that behalf. In such a case it is not open to an Authority under the Scheduled Areas Land Tran-sfer Regulation, 1959 to ignore the patta granted under the 1969 Regulation and say that he will go into the validity or otherwise of the petitioner's possession or occupation, as the case may be, afresh. In my opinion, this can-not be allowed. It is true that Sec. 3 (1) of the 1959 Regulation opens with a non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts", but it must equally be remembered that the Muttas Abolition Regulation, which is a subsequent regulation has been given an express overriding power over all other laws by virtue of Section 34 of this Regulation. In such a case, it is the duty of the Court to reconcile both the provisions and the proper way of doing so, in the circumstances, is to hold that once a patta has been granted after due enquiry under section 3 of the Muttas Abolition and where such order has become final, it shall not be open to the Authorities under the Land Transfer Regulation 1959 to ignore the said patta and take proceedings under Section 3 of the 1959 Regulation or to hold that such person is liable to be evicted under the provision of the 1959 Regulation. Permitting such a course would not only defeat the efficacy of the patta granted under the 1969 Regulation, but would also undo the object and purpose of Section 34 of the 1969 Regulation. There are no reasons to do so, more particularly when the 1969 Regulation contemplates an enquiry into the validity or other-wise of the possession or occupation of the ryot claiming patta with reference to the 1959 Regulation or any other law in that behalf. It would not be reasonable to hold that in spite of such an enquiry being held by the Authorities under the 1969 Regulation and in spite of their being satisfied that the
