A sale deed executed without the prior written permission of the Revenue Officer, as required under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, is void and cannot be legalised by subsequent permission.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The Petitioner is a non-Scheduled Caste person and purchased the disputed land measuring 50 decimals appertaining to plot No. 399 en 16-4-1968 by means of a registered sale deed, from opposite party No. 4 who is a Scheduled Caste man. The said opposite party No. 4 had made an application to the Revenue Officer for permission to transfer the land on 7-2-1968. The Revenue Officer gave permission for transfer on 9-5-1968. Though the registered deed was executed on 16-4-1968, but only a part of the consideration had been paid and the full consideration money was paid on 10-5-1968 and possession was delivered. Opposite party No. 4 made an application on 23-6-1978 long ten years after alleging that there was no prior permission on the date when the registered deed was executed and, therefore, the transfer in question is void u/s 22 of the Orissa land Reforms Act. The Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that the transfer made on 16-4-1968 by virtue of the registered sale deed having been made without the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer, the transfer was void and he accordingly declared the transfer to be invalid and directed that the transferee should pay a penalty of Rs. 100/- and should hand over possession of the land within thirty days from the date of the order. The said order of the Revenue Officer has been annexed as Annexure-2. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the same carried an appeal which was registered as O.L.R. Appeal No. 214 of 1978. The Additional District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the tenure in question had not been converted to a raiyati status on the date the transfer was made and, therefore, Section 22 and 23 of the Orissa Land Reform, Act would have no application. He also came to the conclusion that the transfer must be held to have been effected on 10-5-1968 by which date the required permission u/s 22(1)(b) had been there in writing and therefore, the transfer could not be said to be invalid. He accordingly set aside the order of the Revenue Officer. The order of the appellate authority has been annexed as Annexure-3. Opposite party No. 4 carried a revision which was heard and disposed of by the Special Officer, land Reforms. The said revisional authority came to the conclusion that the sale effected on 16-4-1968 was clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and accordingly the said sale must be held to be null and void. She, therefore, set aside the appellate order but directed that no penalty as ordered by the Revenue Officer should be levied. The order of the revisional authority has been annexed as Annexure-4. The Petitioner has thereafter approached this Court.

2. Two questions have been urged by Mr. Section Misra-2, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in assailing the revisional order of the Special Officer:

(i) The restriction provided in Section 22 of the Orissa land Reforms Act will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the title to the land here has passed on 10-5-1968 by which time the Revenue Officer had given the written permission; and

(ii) The land on the date of alleged transfer not having acquired the raiyati status the provisions of Section 22 of the Act will have no application.

Mr. Kar, the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4, on the other hand, contends that in view of the language used in Section 22 of the Orissa lad Reforms Act the sale deed having been executed on 16-4-1968 without the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer must be held to be void and, therefore, the provisions of Section 22 will apply. He further contends that admittedly opp. party No. 4 being a raiyat and in view of the definition of holding' in Section 2(11) the restrictions contained in Section 22 will apply and, therefore, the revisional authority was justified in annulling the transfer.

3. The rival contentions require a careful examination of the relevant provisions of t