Judgment

Special leave granted. Arguments heard.

2. These two appeals on special leave arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Orissa made in O.J.C Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1983 decided on July 4, 1986 : (reported in (1986) 2 Orissa LR 130) whereby the High Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders made by the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Central Division, Cuttack in O.L.R. Revision No. 131 of 1982 as well as OLR. No. 142 of 1982.

3. The matrix of the case in O.J.C. No. 1007 of 1983 is that on July 30, 1977, the respondent No. 2, Paramanand Sethi filed case No. 85 of 1977 under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, against S/Shri B. Mohapatra, Prafulla Kumar Pati and Gadadhar Pati (Respondents nos. 1, 3 and 4) for restoration of lands sold to respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4, on the ground that respondent No. 2 was a member of the Scheduled Caste (Dhoba Community) and the sales in question were hit by the provisions contained in Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. The respondent No. 2 filed a caste certificate of the Additional Tehasildar, Betanoti wherein the respondent No. 2 was shown as belonging to Dhoba by caste which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste. He also filed the record of rights in the name of Arjun Sethi, father of respondent No. 2 which showed the caste of Arjun Sethi as Dhoba

4. The respondent No. 5, Smt. Nilamani Sethi wife of Late Bhanu Sethi also filed O.L.R. Misc. Case No. 21 of 1979 under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act stating inter alia that the sale made by her in favour of respondent No. 1 who admittedly belonged to Brahmin Caste is void as the said sale was made without the permission of the Revenue Officer as mandatorily required under the provisions of the said Act. She produced the Caste certificate issued by the Tehasildar, Betanoti which showed that she belonged to Dhoba caste which is recognised as a scheduled caste. She further filed two caste certificates issued by the two M.L.As. which certified that she belonged to a scheduled caste, (Dhoba).

5. The Revenue Officer, vide his order dated March 19, 1979 rejected the case No 85 of 1977 filed by the respondent No. 2, Paramanand Sethi. The respondent No. 2 filed O.L.R. Appeal No. 89 of 1979 in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated December 22, 1980. The Additional District Magistrate while allowing the appeal observed as follows :

"It is a known fact that there is no community called Rajaka community which is different from Dhoba community. Rajaka is only a literary word for the common term Dhoba. While mentioning his caste as Rajaka the appellant has not ceased to be a Dhoba. The certificate given by the Addl. Tehasildar, Betanoti and the entry in the R.O. R. confirm the assertion of the petitioner that he is Dhoba by caste. In the circumstances, the petitioner must be held to be a S.C. person and for that matter, his brothers and mother are also the members of a S.C. According to Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act previous permission from the Revenue Officer should have been obtained by them before transferring their lands to the respondents. Since this statutory requirement has not been met, the transfers are illegal. The suit land must, therefore, be restored to the transferors.

6. Against the said Judgment and order, the respondent No. 1 filed O.L.R. Revision No. 131 of 1982 before the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Central Division, Cuttack. The said Revision case was dismissed vide judgment and order dated March 4, 1983 on the finding that there were records of competent authorities like Addl. Tehasildar, Betanoti and the record of rights showing that the caste of Paramanand Sethi is Dhoba. lt. has been further observed that

"As per the Oriya Bhasakosh the definition of Dhoba is Rajaka washer-man. Hence, there is no conflict regarding what is the meaning of Rajaka. It is merely a synonym of the word Dhoba. The Sanskrit for Dho