JUDGMENT

Dr.A.K.RATH, J. - In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged, inter alia, the order dated 23.4.1999 passed by the Collector, Balasore-opposite party no.11 in O.L.R. Revision No.2 of 1988, vide Annexure-3, dismissing the same and thereby confirming the order dated 13.10.1988 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (LR), Balasore, opposite party no.10 in O.L.R. Appeal Case No.4 of 1984, vide Annexure-2. By the said order, the opposite party no.10 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27.7.1984 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balasore-opposite party no.9 in O.L.R. Misc.9 of 1981, wherein it was held that the opposite parties 1 to 8 do not belong to scheduled tribe.

2. Sans details the case of the opposite party nos.1 to 8 is that Ram Chandra Ram the predecessors in interest laid an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balasore-opposite party no.9 under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as “O.L.R.Act”) praying for declaration that the sale deed dated 10.3.1971 executed in favour of Ram Chandra Behera, the predecessors in interest of the petitioners as void on the ground that the said sale deed was obtained from the applicant and his brother Purna Chandra Ram without obtaining the permission as required under Section 22 of the OLR Act and no consideration whatsoever was paid. The said application was registered as O.L.R. Misc. 9 of 1981.Pursuant to issuance of notice, the petitioners entered appearance and filed show cause denying the assertions made in the petition. It was stated that Ram Chandra Ram belongs to ‘Uran’ caste and was not scheduled tribe. Valid consideration money was paid. Further the objection case filed before the Consolidation Authorities was dismissed. It is further stated that after purchase, the land was mutated in favour of the vendee, whereafter final record of rights was published.

3. By order dated 27.7.1984, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balasore-opposite party no.9 dismissed the case. Aggrieved by the said order, Ram Chandra Ram filed O.L.R. Appeal Case No.4 of 1984 before the Additional District Magistrate (LR), Balasore-opposite party no.10, which was allowed on 13.10.1988. The appellate authority held that ‘Oran’ and ‘Uran’ are common pronunciation in Oriya and, as such, the applicant belongs to scheduled tribe. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the Collector, Balasore in O.L.R. Revision No.2 of 1988, which was eventually dismissed.

4. Heard Mr.N.K.Dash on behalf of Mr.N.C.Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.K.Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 7 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties 9 to 12.

5. Two points really arise for consideration of this Court :

(1) Whether roving inquiry is permissible to find out a particular caste belong to scheduled tribe ?

(2) Whether the caste of the predecessors in interest of the opposite party nos.1 to 8 find place in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 ?

Point No.1

6. The subject matter of dispute is no more resintegra. In the State of Maharashtra Vrs. Milind and others, (2001) 1 SCC 4, the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in paragraph-36 of the report held as follows:-

“In the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge:

1. It is not at all permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned i