Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Indrajit Mahanty, J.
SITARAM PATEL AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
COLLECTOR, SAMBALPUR AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 2905 of 1994
Decided On : 12-07-2012
O.L.R. - Land Transfer - Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (O.L.R. Act) - Section 23, Section 22, Section 46 of C.P. Tenancy Act 1898 - The court discussed the applicability of O.L.R. Act, 1960 and C.P. Tenancy Act, 1898 to the transfer of land by Scheduled Tribe persons, the requirement of prior permission, and the validity of the sale deed. The court affirmed that the transfer was void due to the lack of necessary permission under the relevant acts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order declaring the transfer of land to them as void under the O.L.R. Act, 1960. The court analyzed the caste of the parties, the applicability of O.L.R. Act, 1960, and the requirement of prior permission under the C.P. Tenancy Act, 1898.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party belonged to the Scheduled Tribe and that the transfer was subject to the provisions of the C.P. Tenancy Act, 1898. It affirmed the lower authorities' orders declaring the transfer void due to the lack of necessary permission.
Issues: The issues involved the caste of the parties and the applicability of O.L.R. Act, 1960 and C.P. Tenancy Act, 1898 to the transfer of land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer was void as it did not comply with the requirement of prior permission under the C.P. Tenancy Act, 1898, and affirmed the lower authorities' orders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application and affirmed the orders declaring the transfer void.
JUDGMENT :
I. Mahanty, J. - In this writ application, the petitioners have sought to challenge the order dated 18.01.89 passed in O.L.R. Case No. 07 of 1986 u/s 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (In short 'O.L.R.' Act) under Annexure-1/1, wherein, the learned S.D.O., Sadar, Sambalpur had concluded that the transfer of land in favour of the petitioners by registered sale deed, belonging to the opposite party No. 4, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe, was void since no prior permission for sale as required u/s 22 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 had been obtained and directed restoration of the land in favour of opposite party No. 4 u/s 23 (3) of the O.L.R Act, 1960.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned S.D.O., Sadar, Sambalpur, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned A.D.M., O.L.R., Sambalpur which was registered as O.L.R. Appeal Case No. 12 of 1989 (Annexure-2) and the said appeal came to be allowed (in favour of the petitioners) by order dated 16.04.1990 on the ground that the alleged transfer of land had been made on 27.04.1964, whereas the O.L.R. Act, 1960 came into force on 01.10.1965 and, therefore, the appellate authority came to hold that the provisions of O.L.R. Act, 1960 were not applicable for the said transfer for land.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 4 preferred a revision before the learned Collector, Sambalpur in O.L.R. Revision Case No. 4 of 1990, whereby, the learned Collector, Sambalpur by his order dated 11.03.1994 under Annexure-3 was pleased to quash the order of the learned A.D.M., O.L.R., Sambalpur in appeal and affirmed the order passed by the learned S.D.O., Sadar, Sambalpur and directed restoration of the land in favour of the opposite party No. 4 herein.
Mr. C.A. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the petitioners had purchased the disputed land through a Registered Sale Deed No. 1787 dated 27.04.1964 and the same was duly executed by one Bhagirathi Naik (the father of the present opposite party No. 4), one Dasarathi Naik (the paternal uncle of the present opposite party No. 4) and one Lokanath Naik, the present opposite party No. 4 himself, being minor through his father guardian. It was stated that after receiving the total amount of consideration, the vendors delivered the possession of the disputed land to the present petitioners on the same date of the execution of the Registered Sale Deed and the petitioners being the rightful owner in possession continued to enjoy the disputed land without facing any disturbance. In the year 1981, the present petitioners have filed a Mutation Case No. 610 of 1981 before the learned Tahasildar, Rengaloi, who after enquiring the factum of possession, directed for mutation of the disputed land in the names of the present petitioners.
It was further asserted on behalf of the petitioners that the transfer of the disputed land took place on 27.04.1964 and the relevant provision u/s 23 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 (relating to the transfer of immovable property by Scheduled Tribe persons) had not come into force by then, since the said provision came into force only with effect from 17.08.65 i.e. after transfer of the disputed land.
It was further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the present opposite party No. 4 and his father as well as uncle belong to "Raj Gond" caste and the said caste was not included under the Schedule Tribe Community as defined under the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) order 1950. On the other hand, it was asserted that insofar as State of Orissa is concerned, the caste "Gond" was included as "Scheduled Tribe". The caste "Gond" as well as "Raj Gond" both were included under Scheduled Tribes Community for the State of Maharashtra and not for Orissa. It was stated that the caste "Raj Gond" cannot be treated as Scheduled Tribe community insofar as State of Orissa is concerned. Therefore, since at the time of the aforesaid transfer i.e. on 27.04.1964 permi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
