The court affirmed that sales completed before the introduction of Section 36-A, validating previous transfers of land under certain conditions, rendered the petitioners' challenges to the validity of their predecessor's sale deed without merit.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in R.C. No.124 of 2006 by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.2).

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the case land originally belonged to one Anantaram Sahu (father of the petitioners). The father of the petitioners i.e. Anantaram Sahu sold the case land to the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Chittaranjan Panda through Registered Sale Deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 and delivered possession thereof. But, the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Chittaranjan Panda died leaving behind the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 as his successors. During consolidation operation, the R.o.R of the case land was prepared in favour of the petitioners. For which, the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 filed a revision vide R.C. No.124 of 2006 before the Opp. Party No.2 for correction of R.o.R of the case land to their names. The said Revision Case No.124 of 2006 was disposed of finally remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Sambalpur for its hearing afresh.

3. After hearing, the Consolidation Officer-cum-Sub- Collector, Sambalpur allowed the case of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 and directed Tahasildar, Sambalpur for correction of the R.o.R of the case land from the name of the petitioners (petitioners in this writ petition) to the name of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4. Accordingly, the R.o.R of the case land was prepared in the name of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 vide Khata No.228/654 bearing Chaka No.85/882.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed WP(C) No.1902 of 2024 before this Court challenging the order passed in R.C. No.124 of 2006.

After hearing from both the sides, this Court disposed of that WP(C) No.1902 of 2024 on dated 03.12.2024 giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the revisional authority within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order for hearing of the revision case No.124 of 2006 again filed by the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 of this writ petition.

4. During the course of hearing of the Revision Case No.124 of 2006 before the Opp. Party No.2 afresh, the petitioners raised the contentions that, the sale deed of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 in respect of the case land is void according to Section 34 & 35 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 as the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 purchased the part Chaka fragmenting the Chaka.

5. After hearing from both the sides, the Revisional Court i.e. Opp. Party No.2 finally disposed of that Revision Case No.124 of 2006 on dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) afresh and held that, “the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 have the right, title and interest in the case land, because, their father i.e. Chitta Ranjan Panda had lawfully purchased the same from Anantaram Sahu through R.S.D. No.2012 dated 08.10.1985, and they (Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4) are in possession over the same, for which, it would be iniquitous to deny and disallow the rightful claim of the petitioners of the Revision Case No.124 of 2006 i.e. Deepak Kumar Panda and Alok Kumar Panda (Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 of this writ petition), in view of the introduction of Section 36 -A into the statute book and omission of chapter V including Section 34 and 35 from the said Statute Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972, therefore, the Sale Deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 executed by the father of the petitioners in favour of the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 in respect of the case land cannot be held as void and invalid under law.”

6. On being aggrieved with the aforesa