Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act is prospective, and proceedings initiated concerning pre-enactment transactions are not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

This writ petition involves a challenge to the orders at Annexures- 2, 3 and 4 respectively passed by the competent authorities under the provision of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT .

2. Undisputedly the writ petition faces a challenge to confirming order by all the three forums but enumerated on a petition involving Section 23-A of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT . In course of hearing, question arose looking to the sale transaction taking place on 19.06.1969 vide Registered Sale Deed No. 1268 of 1969 if a proceeding under Section 23-A of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT could have been initiated in the year 2004 vide O.L.R. Case No.1 of 2004. After hearing the submissions of respective counsel, this Court finds the provision at Section 23-A of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT restricts a transaction of scheduled property inserted by Orissa Act No.44 of 1976 and a submission is made that for the prospective nature of the provision, the proceeding initiated under Section 23-A of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT was not maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also takes help of a judgment of this Court in the case of Dama Meher V. Champeswar Bentkar & Ors., 64 (1987) CLT 516. Drawing the attention to paragraph-7 of the said judgment, Mr.Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking support of the judgment to his plea hereinabove submitted that undisputedly the provision at Section 23-A of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT was introduced by Act 44 of 1976 and supports the judgment referred to hereinabove.

3. Learned State Counsel however did not have any objection in view of prospective nature of legislation, action involved preintroduction of legal provision further in view of the legal pronouncement by this Court. This Court finds in paragraph-7 of the above judgment, the Single bench came to observe as follows:-

“7. Coming the other submission regarding applicability of section 23-A of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT , it depends upon an interpretation of the said provision. Section 23-A is quoted hereinbelow in extenso:—

“23-A. Eviction of person in unauthorised occupation of property:—

Where any person is found to be in unauthorised occupation of the whole or part of a holding of a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Caste or of a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe within any part of the State other than a Scheduled Area, by way of trespass or otherwise, the Revenue Officer may, either on application by the owner of any person interested therein or on his own motion, and after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, order eviction of the person so found to be in unauthorised occupation and shall cause restoration of the property to the said raiyat or to his heir in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 23.”

Mr. Acharya contends that since the sale is declared to be invalid, the possession of defendant No. 1 must be held to be unauthorised in the eye of law and, therefore, such a person can be evicted by the Revenue Officer under section 23-A of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT . Section 67 of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT provides:—

“67. Bar. of jurisdiction of Civil Courts:—

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try and decide any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any Officer or other competent Authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide.”

Therefore, if section 23-A would be applicable and if the relief asked for can be given by a Revenue Officer under the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT , then section 67 takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Section 23-A was inserted into the statute by amendment by Act 44 of 1976 a