Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sanju Panda, Krushna Ram Mohapatra, JJ.
Dinabandhu Ekka and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Odisha and Ors. - Respondent
W.A. No. 406 of 2019
Decided On : 08-02-2021
Permission - Alienation of Immovable Property - Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 - Rule 3 of the Rules - [Rule 3 of the Rules] - [3(1) of the Regulation] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: Rule 3 of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1959, deals with the procedure for transfer of immovable property of members of Scheduled Tribe to non-Scheduled Tribe person. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 provides for necessary enquiry to be made by an Officer duly authorized before passing the order in the application for transfer. The enquiry should be summary in nature and the Enquiring Officer has to submit a report in the Form-I appended to the Rules. Clause-4 of Form-I provides that name and caste of persons to whom the land is to be alienated should be stated. The court discussed the permission granted in Revenue Misc. Case No. 240 of 1962-63 and its validity, the subsequent proceedings, and the findings of the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 10 of 1991, which concluded that the permission granted in favor of the predecessors of Respondent Nos. 6 to 12 was proper. The court also emphasized the duty of the authorities under the Regulations to prevent exploitation of members of Scheduled Tribes while ensuring that bona fide purchasers are not unnecessarily harassed or dragged into litigation by mis-utilizing the provisions of the Regulations. The case law cited by the appellants was found to have no application to the case at hand. The court found no infirmity in the order passed by the Writ Court. ]
Fact of the Case:
The dispute revolves around a piece of land originally recorded in the name of a member of the Scheduled Tribe community. Various alienations of the land were made, leading to a series of proceedings and appeals. The appellants challenged the validity of the permission granted for alienation of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the permission granted for alienation of the land was proper and valid, and the subsequent proceedings were an abuse of process of court. The court emphasized the duty of the authorities to prevent exploitation of members of Scheduled Tribes while ensuring that bona fide purchasers are not unnecessarily harassed or dragged into litigation by mis-utilizing the provisions of the Regulations.
Issues: Validity of permission for alienation of land, abuse of process of court, duty of authorities under the Regulations to prevent exploitation of members of Scheduled Tribes and protect bona fide purchasers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the permission granted for alienation of the land was proper and valid, and the subsequent proceedings were an abuse of process of court. The court emphasized the duty of the authorities to prevent exploitation of members of Scheduled Tribes while ensuring that bona fide purchasers are not unnecessarily harassed or dragged into litigation by mis-utilizing the provisions of the Regulations.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed as devoid of any merit, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Krushna Ram Mohapatra, J.
1. This Intra Court appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 14.08.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 16365 of 2018, whereby, he dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (for short, "the Regulations").
2. Mr. Sidharth Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants narrating backdrop of the case necessary for proper adjudication of the appeal submitted that the dispute revolves around a piece of land pertaining to Sabik Plot No. 482 measuring Ac. 0.36 decimals and Plot No. 480 measuring Ac. 1.45 decimals under Sabik Khata No. 37 of mouza-Durgapur P.S. Uditnagar in the district of Sundargarh (for short, 'the case land').
3. The case land originally stood recorded in the name of one Gudru Oram, the ancestor of the appellants, who belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. Said Gudru Oram died leaving behind two sons, namely, Bandhu and Gosein. Gosein died issueless. Bandhu died leaving behind four sons, namely, Bisu, Tunia, Godro and Chama. Tunia died leaving behind his widow, Dulia. All of them filed an application before the S.D.O., Panposh to accord permission to sell Ac. 0.36 decimals from Plot No. 482 in favour of one Sachidananda Pattnaik and another Ac. 1.45 decimal from Plot No. 480 in favour of Sreelal Agarwal and others. The said petition was registered as Revenue Misc. Case No. 240 of 1962-63. By order dated 03.11.1963, the S.D.O., Panposh accorded permission for such alienation. Thereafter, an Ac. 1.00 decimal was alienated in favour of Sreelal Agarwal by virtue of Registered Sale Deed No. 29.7/1964. The rest Ac. 0.45 decimal was alienated in favour of Iswardas Agarwal, the father of respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and Dwarika Prasad Agarwal, the father of the respondent Nos. 11 and 12 by virtue of RSD No. 298 of 1964.
4. While the matter stood thus, the S.D.O., Panposh initiated suo motu RMC No. 80 of 1972 under the provisions of the Regulations basing upon the report of the Revenue Inspector. The said Revenue Misc. Case was initiated on the allegation that the permission granted for sale of the case land was not legal and proper. The vendors are still in possession over the case land and title never passed to the vendees by virtue of the sale deeds in question. Considering the materials available on record, the S.D.O., Panposh dropped the said Revenue Misc Case, vide order dated 30.04.1976 holding that permission for sale was just and proper and pursuant to the sale, the vendees are in possession over the case land. Subsequently, one Deogi Oram claiming herself to be the adopted daughter of Gosein Oram, filed RMC No. 222 of 1987 for restoration of the case land in her favour under the provisions of the Regulations. The said Revenue Misc. Case was also dropped, vide order dated 23.01.1990 holding that the objector had not made out any case for interference. Assailing the said order dated 23.01.1990, Bisra Oram claiming to be the adopted son of Deogi Oram, filed Revenue Appeal No. 10 of 1991 before the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh (Respondent No. 2). During pendency of the said appeal, Bisra Oram died and his widow Sugi Oram was substituted in his place. She also died during pendency of the appeal. One Chama Oram claiming to be the brother of Bisu Oram and guardian of the daughter of Bisu Oram pursued the appeal. The said appeal was allowed on 12.09.1996. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.09.1996, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 sons of Iswardas Agarwal filed OJC No. 5484 of 1997. Likewise, the Respondent Nos. 8 to 10, 11 and 12 also filed OJC No. 5088 of 1997. Both the Writ Petitions were allowed vide order dated 25.10.2016 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh adjudication. On remand, the Appellate Authority, upon de novo hearing of the matter, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.06.2018 against which W.
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
