The procedure to be followed for the transfer of land by a scheduled caste person to a non-scheduled caste person is set out in Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT :

D. Pathak, C.J. - This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 1-2-82 (Annexure-4) passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.L.R. Revision No. 25 of 1980 by which the appellate order dated 2-11-79 (Annexure 3) in O.L.R. Appeal No. 258 of 1978 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, opposite party No. 3, confirming the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Kaptipada, in O.L.R. Case No. 659 of 1976 has been upheld.

2. A brief narration of the facts leading to the present application is that opposite party No. 1 Udayanath Tegaita sold a piece of land to one Duryodhan Satrusila in the year 1973 by a registered sale deed on receipt of consideration of Rs. 1000/-. In 1977, Duryodhan sold the said land to the sons of the present Petitioner by a registered sale deed executed on 23-12-77 after obtaining necessary permission for the aforesaid transfer, the vendor being a scheduled caste person and the vendee a non-scheduled caste person. In 1976, on the written allegation of opposite party No. 1, Udayanath Tagaita, that the transaction of sale to Duryodhan was benami, the Subdivisional Officer, Kaptipada, opposite party No. 2, initiated O.L.R. Case No. 659 of 1976 against the present Petitioner Shyamsundar Khuntia and after taking evidence and hearing both parties came to the conclusion that the permission obtained from the Subdivisional Officer in a proceeding under Regulation 2 of 1956 was not valid permission for transfer of land belonging to a scheduled caste person to a non-scheduled caste person. It was further held that the transaction was benami.

3. The Petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, opposite party No. 3, and the appellate authority without going through the merit of the case, as we have thoroughly perused the judgment passed by him, affirmed the decision of the Subdivisional Officer, opposite party No. 2.

4. Thereupon, the Petitioner took up the matter before the revisional authority, opposite party No. 4, and the revisional authority also found that the permission obtained by Duryodhan was not in accordance with law. But so far as the question of benami transaction is concerned, the revisional authority found that there was no evidence to indicate that the transaction of sale by opposite party No. 1 to Duryodhan was benami in nature.

5. The short question for consideration is whether at the first place the transaction of transfer of the land by opposite party No. 1 in favour of Duryodhan was valid or not.

We have already indicated that the revisional authority has come to a clear finding that there was no material to hold that the transaction between opposite party No. 1 and Duryodhan was benami in nature. Having come to that conclusion, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority should have stopped short, because if the transaction between opposite party No. 1 and Duryodhan is held to be valid, there is no question of any further enquiry to be made. The question that was raised by opposite party No. 1 before the Subdivisional Officer, opposite party No. 2, was that the transfer he made in favour of Duryodhan was benami in nature and on that allegation alone, the learned Subdivisional Officer initiated the O.L.R. proceeding which was decided against the Petitioner, the present opposite party No. 1.

6. Now let us go through the broad spectrum of the facts giving rise to the present petition. The transaction between opposite party No. 1 and Duryodhan was by a registered sale deed in respect of the same land in 1973. From the evidence that transpired during the course of the proceeding, it was found that Duryodhan was in cultivating possession of the said land four about four years till it was transferred by him by a registered sale deed on 23-12-77 to the sons of the present Petitioner. This by itself shows that there is no material indicative of any benami transaction