SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Ori) 7

G.B.PATTANAIK, A.K.PADHI
GOPAL BARIHA – Appellant
Versus
SATYANARAYAN DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.MOHAPATRA, B.L.N.SWAMY, B.MOHANTY, P.K.MOHANTY

A. K. PADHI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a member of Scheduled Tribe assails the order of the revisional authority arising out of a proceeding under S. 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as 'the O. L. R. Act' ).

( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe had purchased the disputed property comprising of an area of A. O. 22 dec. of land in village Padhel on 25-8-1975. According to the petitioner, though the sale deed stands in the name of opposite party No. 2, the real transferee was opposite party No. 1 who belongs to a non-Scheduled Tribe. On these allegations a petition was filed under S. 23 of the O. L. R. Act praying for restoration of possession.

( 3 ) THE opposite parties 1and 2 appeared and according to them opposite party No. 2 was the real purchaser and the transfer being from one Scheduled Tribe member to another Scheduled Tribe member, no permission was required before such transfer.

( 4 ) ON enquiry, the learned Revenue Officer held that the real transferee was opposite party No. 1 and to play fraud on the prohibition under S. 22 of the O. L. R. Act, the sale deed had been executed in favour of opposite party No. 2 and this order










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top