The main legal point established is that the provisions of Sections 22 & 23 of the O.L.R. Act are applicable to both agricultural and homestead land in the scheduled area, and the court has the discretion to consider the developments made on the land and the consent of the parties in determining the appropriate relief.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.01.1994 passed by the Collector, Balangir in O.L.R. Revision Case No.35 of 1986, more particularly challenging the application of the provisions of O.L.R. Act on the homestead land situates within the area of Notified Area Council, Titilagarh.

2. Short back ground involved in the case is that petitioner had purchased the disputed land measuring an area A0.17 decimals corresponding to plot No.901/1188 in Khata No.53 vide registered sale deed dated 15.01.1974 for a consideration of Rs.5000/-. Petitioner had obtained a plan for construction of Textile Mill on the purchased land and got the plan approved by the Executive Officer, N.A.C, Titilagarh in the year 1974. Petitioner started a Power Loom establishment through the constructed Textile Mill. This land was recorded as GHARABARI-2 in the year 1976 basing on the report dated 29.11.1975 of the Settlement Amin. After long gap of ten years of the purchase, the Opp. Party No.1 initiated a proceeding under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act before the Revenue Officer, Titilagarh challenging the transfer of land as illegal for having taken place without prior permission of the Revenue Officer as the case land originally belonged to a Scheduled Caste person and sold to the person outside the caste. The case was registered as RMC Case No.8/35 of 1984. The petitioner field show cause contending therein that the Opp. Party No.01 is not a Scheduled Caste person and the land in dispute is a house site in urban area resulting the provision of O.L.R Act has no application. RMC Case No.8/35 of 1984 was disposed of in favour of Opp. Party No.1 holding transfer of land without obtaining permission from the competent authority, as void. The order being challenged in O.L.R Appeal No.20 of 1986, the Additional District Magistrate, Balangir allowed the appeal observing that the provision of O.L.R. Act has no application as the land in dispute being homestead under urban area. The appeal order being assailed in revision vide O.L.R. Revision No.35 of 1986, the Collector Balangir allowed the revision in favour of Opp. Party No.1 reversing the order passed by the appellate authority and thereby confirming the order passed by the original authority – (Revenue Officer) . On being aggrieved by the revisional order, thereby confirming the original order, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed land being situated within the urban area and for change of status of the land to GHARABARI, the provision of O.L.R Act had no application. The original authority as well as the revisional authority having failed to understand the above legal aspect, committed illegality and both the orders passed by the original authority as well as revisional authority are not sustainable in the eye of law.

3. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.1 in opposition to the submissions of Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provision contained in Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act is not only restricted to non-urban lands but the Act has also its application to the scheduled areas. Since entire Titilagarh is coming under the scheduled area, the Act has the application over the disputed land. Similarly there is also no exclusion of the provision from the homestead land. Looking to the provision of Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960, it is only to be seen as to if any transaction concerning the land belonging to Scheduled Caste has been made in contravention of Section 22 of the Act without obtaining the permission of the competent authority for sale. No permission having been obtained prior to sale, being effected between the parties, the sale transaction is void and the provision of Section 23 of the Act is very much attracted to the present case. In the premises, Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No. 1 contended that neither the original authority nor the revisional authorit