in 1987-88 is now under challenge and sub judice in R.P. Case No.95 of 2020, which has been instituted by the vendors themselves. In this connection, he has submitted, reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the suit land belonged to Paikapara Estate which stood vested in the State Government by operation of Section 3 of the OEA Act. The vesting order was challenged before this Court on the ground that the State Government was not entitled to take possession of the same by virtue of Section 5(h) of the OEA Act. The matter had travelled to the Supreme Court wherein it was declared that the Rayati interest in the lands had not been affected by the OEA Act and taking over possession by the State Government was illegal. No order was passed, however, for restitution of the property in favour of exintermediary and it further transpires that after death of exintermediary, no one claiming to be the legal heirs approached the authority under the OEA Act for resumption of possession of the disputed land, as a result of which, the Settlement Authority recorded the suit land in the name of the State Government in the year 1987, nearly 26 years after the disposal of the case by the Supreme Court. Fifty eight years after disposal of the case by the Supreme Court, one of the vendors filed a case for correction of the entries in the RoR which gave rise to R.P. Case No.95 of 2020 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, which is still pending. At this stage, vendors are said to have intended to transfer the suit land in favour of the purchaser, the sale deed for which was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar that was refused in the background of the admitted fact that in the Hal RoR published in 1987-88 the land stood entered in the name of the State Government with a note regarding possession in favour of one
