The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act are mandatory, and non-compliance renders the transaction void. The court also emphasized that the non-issuance of notice to the transferor did not vitiate the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 27.9.2007 passed in OJC No. 1320 of 1999 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Puri - Respondent no. 3 in proceedings u/s 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") initiated at the instance of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and orders of other Revenue Authorities confirming the same stand dismissed.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Misc. Case No. 96 of 1992 u/s 23 of the Act before the Revenue Officer, Puri for cancellation of sale deed dated 2.5.1972 executed in favour of the Appellant by their father without prior permission of the Revenue Officer. The said Misc. Case was allowed by the Revenue Officer vide Judgment and Order Dated 9.5.1983 ( Annexure-1 ) and the sale deed dated 2.5.1972 was held to be null and void. Appellant was directed to restore possession to the said Respondents. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal, i.e. OLR Appeal No. 12/ 83 which was dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 31.7.19:85 (Annexure - 2). The said Judgment and order of the Appellate authority was affirmed by the revisional authority in Revision No. 5/85 vide Judgment and Order Dated 28.1.1995 (Annexure-3), Against the said revisional order the Writ Petition was filed which has also dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 27.9.2007. Hence this appeal.

3. Before us, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has agitated the sole ground that as notice was not served upon the transferor Judgment and orders impugned herein, being violative of principle of natural justice stood vitiated. Thus appeal deserve to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. P. Panda, Learned Additional Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the alleged sale deed being in contravention of the statutory provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act was void and therefore, the Judgment and orders passed by the Revenue Authorities do not require any interference. The said Judgments are in consonance with law. Provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act are mandatory and require strict adherence. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

Section 22(1) of the Act reads as under:

22. Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes-

(1) Any transfer of holding or part thereof by a raiyat, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void except where it is in favour of -

(a) a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe; or

(b) a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe when such transfer is made with the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer:

Provided that in case of a transfer by sale, the Revenue Officer shall not grant such permission unless he is satisfied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe willing to pay the market price for the land is not available, and in case of a gift unless he is satisfied about the bona fides thereof.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) Except with the written permission of the Revenue Officer, no such holding shall be sold in execution of a decree to any person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.

xxx xxx xxx.

6. Section 23(1) empowers the revenue authority to initiate proceedings and evict a person in case he is found to be in possession in pursuance of a sale deed in contravention of the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act. Section 23(2) provides for imposition of penalty if a person is found to be in possession of theland transferred in his favour in contravention of the provisions of Section 22(1) and such a penalty is to be determined taking into consideration the period during which he retained the illegal possession in pursuance of the void transaction.

7. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge affirming the f