JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for quashing the order dated 1.2.2013 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak in O.C.H & P.F.L. Misc. Case No.11 of 2012 and thereby a suitable direction to the opposite party No.1 not to evict the petitioner from the case land.

2. Short background involved in this case is that the present petitioner purchased a piece of land measuring Ac.0.27 decimals out of Ac.0.60 decimals from Plot No.1446, Chaka No.623, Khata No.691 of Mouza-Berhampur by three Registered Sale Deeds bearing No.2401 dated 12.6.2001, No.2402 dated 12.6.2001 and No.4087 dated 31.10.2003 from the pro-forma opposite parties and as a consequence of which, the petitioner remained in possession of the suit land. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party Nos.2 to 10 filed an application under Section 34 & 35 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 before the Collector praying therein to declare the transfer of the case land by pro-forma opposite parties in favour of the petitioner as void. While making such prayer, they also sought for a direction for eviction of the petitioner from the case land. This matter was registered as O.C.H. & P.F.L. Misc. Case No.11 of 2012.

The contesting opposite parties, on their appearance, contended that the case land since was undivided ancestral property of the opposite party Nos.2 to 10 and the pro-forma opposite parties, the record has been prepared in the consolidation record of rights indicating all their names as joint owners of the land and the disputed lands were being possessed by all these persons independently by virtue of an amicable partition claiming that the transfer of the land by the pro-forma opposite parties in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act and claimed therein for declaring the transaction as void and further, the opposite party Nos.2 to 10 claimed that they have a justified claim for eviction of the petitioner. Above was decided on contest but in absence of the pro-forma opposite parties holding that the transfer or partition of the disputed property remaining in contravention to the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act, becomes void and consequently, held that the person occupying or in possession of any of the land by virtue of such transfer is liable to be summararily evicted. Consequently, a direction was given to the Tahasildar for evicting the opposite party No.1 therein i.e. the present petitioner and report compliance.

3. Assailing the impugned order, Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to purchase of the disputed land, the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land since 1995 and therefore, he had already perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession. The case of the petitioner before the Collector was that the case land since had already come within the town planning area, the provisions contained in Section 34 & 35 of the Act were not applicable to the present case and the sale deeds could not have been declared as void. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that for the O.C.H. & P.F.L. (Amendment) Act, 2012, the sub-Sections 1 & 2 of the Section 34 of the Act shall not be applicable to any land, which is covered under the Orissa Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1956. The benefit of the amended provision goes in favour of the petitioner resulting the impugned order as bad.

4. Relying upon decisions as reported in (1) AIR 1989 SC 1247, (2) (2000) 7 SCC 357 & (3) 2014 (Supl.-I) OLR 1089, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court referred to hereinabove, the petitioner has a case in his favour.

5. Sri A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the private opposite party Nos.2 to 10 while refuting to each of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for