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

2014 Supreme(Ori) 634

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
AMITAVA ROY, A.K. RATH, JJ.
Sutar Chemical Private Limited and another - Appellants
Versus
Collector, Balasore and others - Respondents
W.A. No. 506 of 2013
Decided on : 10.12.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: Mr. B. Baug
For the Respondents:Mr. B.N. Bhuyan, Addl. Govt. Advocate (For Resp. No.1), Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate (For Resp. No. 2)

Headnote:1. ORISSA CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION OF LAND ACT, 1972 - Sec. 53 - A transfer made in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act shall not be valid or recognized, anything contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding.

       The object of Sec. 53 of the Act is to consolidate and prevent fragmentation of holdings. The intention of the legislature is to encourage the development of agriculture and improve the agricultural products, and one way achieves the object by introducing consolidation schemes. The object of the Act is sought to be achieved by allotting a compact area in lieu of scattered plots, as that would facilitate large-scale cultivation, which will help in economic farming and application of improved implements and methods of farming, which are necessary for development of agriculture and increased agricultural production. Fragmentation of holdings is’ intended to be avoided, since that will impede the development of agriculture and interfere with increasing of production of food grains. (Paras - 13 & 14)

       2. ORISSA CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION OF LAND ACT, 1972 - Secs.34and 35 - Before the owner of a chaka intends to transfer a fragment of the same, he may apply to the Tahsildar of the locality for, the said purpose, otherwise a transfer or partition in contravention of the provisions of Section 34 shall be void in view of Section 35. (Para -15)

       3. ORISSA CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION OF LAND ACT, 1972 - Sec. 35 - While exercising the jurisdiction under the section, the Collector neither exercises jurisdiction as an appellate authority nor revisional authority - The section also does not contemplate in making an application. (Para - 22)

       4. ORISSA CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION OF LAND ACT, 1972 Sec. 35 - Whether the Collector can exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 35(2) of the Act at any time? - No period of limitation has been prescribed in the section for exercise of power by the Collector to evict the transferee of a portion of chaka in contravention of Section 34 of the Act Power of the Collector cannot be cribbed, cabined or confined by providing a period of limitation by judicial interpretation - If any period of limitation will be prescribed by the judicial interpretation then the legislative intention of the Act would be forfeited - Again there will be innumerable fragments of the chakas. (Para - 23)

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

In this appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent, the appellants call in question the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.31773 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Collector, Balasore in Consolidation Case No.8 of 2007. By order dated 28.11.2011, the Collector, Balasore-respondent no.1 held that RSD No.4172 dated 7.12.1990, RSD No. 4173 dated 7.12.1990 and RSD No.1147 dated 16.10.2007, which had been executed in contravention of Sec. 34 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), are void. Having held so, respondent no.1 evicted the present appellants, who are opposite parties 3 and 4 in consolidation case, from the land transferred to them vide RSD No.1147 dated 16.10.2007.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the appellants are that one Sridhar Sahoo was the recorded owner in respect of consolidation khata no.291, chaka no.48, chaka plot No.92, area-Ac.1.16 dec. of mouza-Sanamaitapur under the Balasore Tahasil. During his life time, he had executed two registered sale deeds bearing RSD No.4172 dated 7.12.1990 in respect of khata no.291, chaka no.48, plot no.92, area Ac.0.08 dec. and RSD No.4173 dated 7.12.1990 in respect of khata no.291, chaka No.48, plot no.92, area Ac.0.40 dec. in favour of respondent nos.3 and 4. Thereafter, respondent no.4 alienated an area of Ac.0.24 dec. out of Ac.0.48 dec. in favour of Narayan Sahoo, father of respondent no.2 by means of RSD No.1283 dated 1.10.2002. While the matter stood thus, respondent no.3 intended to execute a registered sale deed of the remaining area in favour of the appellants. He made an application before the Tahasildar, Simulia to sale Ac.0.24 dec. land appertaining to khata no.291, chaka plot no.92, chaka no.48. In the said application, the amin submitted the enquiry report and sketch map. After considering the same, the Tahasildar, Simulia, respondent no.5 by order dated 12.10.2007 granted permission to sale the said land in favour of the appellants. Thereafter, respodnentno.3 had executed the registered sale deed on 16.10.2007 and delivered possession. After purchase, the appellants laid mutation case. By order dated 15.2.2008, in Mutation Case No.1683 of 2007 the respondent no.5 mutated the land in favour of the appellants and granted record of rights. The appellant no.1 had also filed OLR Case No.23 of 2008 under Sec.8(A) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act for conversion of the land. The same was allowed on 30.7.2008 and, accordingly the record of right was issued. After mutation, appellant no.1 has developed the land and constructed a weigh bridge. He has also constructed a house and installed an electric transformer for his business. While the matter stood thus, respondent no.2 had filed Consolidation Misc. Case No. 8 of 2007 before the Collector, Balasore under Sec. 35(1) of the Act for a declaration that the RSD Nos. 4172 and 4173 dated 7.12.1990 and 1147 dated 16.10.2007 are void and to delivery possession of the land.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the appellants entered appearance and filed their objections contending, inter alia, that the lands were sold after obtaining due permission under Sec. 34(3) of the Act. It was further contended that in order to harass them, respondent no.2 had also filed a Civil Suit, being C.S.No.620 of 2008, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balasore.

4. By order dated 28.11.2011, the Collector came to hold that RSD No.4172 dated 7.12.1990, RSD No.4173 dated 7.12.1990 and RSD No.1147 dated 16.10.2007 had been executed in contravention of Sec. 34 of the Act. Having held so, the Collector declared the same as void and evicted the appellants from the land in question.

5. Assailing the order dated



















































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 Back to top