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 Sec. 27 of the Limitation Act. Initially, in the Orissa Land Reforms Act, there was no provision for recovery of possession from person in unauthorized 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 Sec.23-A for recovery of possession from a person in unauthorized 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 unauthorized 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 others). Subsequently, Sec.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 Sec.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 others). Though this decision was rendered with reference to a similar provision contained in Sec. 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 another). In fact, in view of the observations made in the latter decision pointing out the anomally relating to provision of limitation applicable under Sec.23, and Sec.23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the Legislature thought if fit to subsequently amend the provision by introducing Sec.23-B.”
