Consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to decide the validity of a transfer under Section 22 of the O. L. R. Act during consolidation operations.

NANAVATI, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1, either individually or along with the other two petitioners, purchased certain lands of village Suktapali from different persons between the years 1967 and 1978. During the consolidation proceedings in respect of that area, the petitioners applied under Section 9 (3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter, "the Act") for recording their names in the relevant records on the strength of the said purchases. These applications were registered as Objection Case Nos. 772/102, 1056/887 and 1050/390. The Consolidation Officer disallowed the claims of the petitioners on the ground that the sales in their favour were void in view of Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the O. L. R. Act") and disposed of those Objection Cases accordingly. The petitioners, instead of filing appeals against those orders, filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. Those applications were registered as Objection Case Nos. 320/150, 724/ 54, 877 / 208, 926 /257 and 1001/332. The Consolidation Officer dismissed those objection cases also on the ground that the sales were void and also on the ground that the earlier applications under Section 9 (3) of the Act were rejected. All these orders, Annexures 1 to 7, are challenged in this petition.

( 2 ) WHEN this petition was placed earlier before the Division Bench for hearing, it was, inter alia, contended that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to decide that the transactions of sale were void as they contravened the provisions of Section 22 of the O. L. R. Act and therefore, the orders passed by him should be regarded as illegal and bad. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Labanga Debeta v. State of Orissa, (O. J. C. No. 2566 of 1984 decided on 10-8-1990 ). The Division Bench doubted the correctness of the decision given in that case and it was of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. For that reason, this petition is now placed before this larger Bench for deciding whether the view taken in Labanga Debata's case that a transaction in contravention of Section 22 of the O. L. R. Act does not become ipso facto void until a proceeding is initiated under Section 23 and validity of the transaction is determined by the designated Revenue Officer is correct or not.

( 3 ) WE will therefore, examine what led this court to take that view in the case of Labanga Debata. The reasons given by the Court for taking that view are as under: -". . . The consolidation authorities are not the designated functionaries under the O. L. R. Act to decide the question regarding the invalidity of the sale deeds since Section 23 of the O. L. R. Act in the provision to implement the provisions of Section 22 of that Act. Once an enquiry is taken up under the provisions of Section 23 of the O. L. R. Act, it will be possible for the purchasers to defend a transaction on various grounds. They may contend that the transactions were not between the prohibited categories of persons or that the transactions were with the permission of the authorities or that though the transactions were made in contravention of Section 22, yet the title has been perfected through adverse possession. Hence without a proceeding before the designated forum, such questions cannot be decided by the consolidation authorities. "

( 4 ) IN substance, the reason which appealed to that division Bench for holding why the consolidation authorities cannot decide on their own that the transaction is void was that prior adjudication in that behalf by a Revenue Officer is necessary. The necessity for prior adjudication was felt in order to protect lawful purchases and also because of the provision made in Section 23 of the O. L. R. Act for an inquiry. If we read Ss. 22 and 23 of the O. L. R. Act more closely, it becomes clear that Section 23 is not a provision for implementat