ORDER

20.10.2014 - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party Nos. 3 to 5. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 does not appear in spite of repeated calls.

Order dated 04.05.1994 under Annexure-3 passed by the Collector, Jajpur-opposite party No.5 in OLR Revision No.2 of 1994 setting aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate (LR) passed in OLR Appeal No. 19 of 1989 and restoring the order of the Revenue Officer, Jajpur passed in OLR Case No. 23 of 1988 with regard to restoration of the case land in favour of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is assailed in this writ petition.

One Daitari Behera, the husband of opposite party No.1 and father of opposite party No. 2 - sold the case land in favour of the petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 24.05.1978. After his death, the present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act for restoration of the case land in their favour on the assertion that though their ancestor belonged to 'Keuta' caste, which is a scheduled caste as per the Presidential Order for the State of Orissa, he sold the land to the petitioner without permission of the competent authority as required under Section 22 of the OLR Act, and, therefore, the sale is void and the property is liable to be restored in their favour. The writ petitioner contested the case, but the Revenue Officer held that the caste, 'Keuta' is synonymous to the caste, 'Dewar' which is a scheduled caste as per the Presidential Order for the State of Orissa, and, therefore, the sale in favour of the purchaser (writ petitioner) being without permission of the competent authority is void. Accordingly, the Revenue Officer directed for restoration of property in question in favour of present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

The order of the Revenue Officer as aforesaid was challenged by the petitioner in OLR Appeal No. 19 of 1989 before the Additional District Magistrate (LR), Cuttack-opposite party No.4. By his order dated 21.03.1990 (Annexure-2) the Additional District Magistrate allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Revenue Officer, Jajpur. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the order of appellate authority before the Collector, Jajpur in OLR Revision No.2 of 1994. By the impugned order, the Collector allowed the revision and set aside the appellate order and held, in agreement with the finding, of the Revenue Officer, that the caste 'keuta' is synonymous to 'Dewar' which is a scheduled caste,

The only point that arises is whether the caste 'Keuta' was scheduled caste on the date of execution of the sale deed so as to require permission of the competent authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act for its validity. Admittedly, on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 24.05.1978, the caste 'Keuta' was not a scheduled caste as per the Presidential Order for the State, though subsequently it was included in the Presidential Order as per Government of India Notification dated 18.02.2002.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry or to accept any evidence to decide or declare that any caste or community or part or group of any caste or community is included in the general name of a particular caste which is included in the presidential order. In this respect, he has made a reference to the constitutional bench decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 393 (State of Maharashtra v. Millind and others)

In the case reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130 - Merri Chandra Sekhar Rao v. The Dean, Seth G.S.Medical College and others, the apex Court declared that:

"subject to law made by the Parliament under Article 342, the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities specified by the President by public notification shall be final for the purpose of the constitution. They are the tribes