SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ori) 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
Hemanta Naik - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
W.P.(C) No.27920, 23087, 23088, 23089, 23090, 23738, 25907, 25911, 25913, 25918, 25922, 25930, 25940, 27922, 27923, 27924, 27926, 27927, 28123, 28125, 28127, 28128, 28131, 28133, 28137, 28138, 28140, 30889, 30892, 31664, 32307, 32313, 32317, 32319, 32491, 32492, 32509, 32511, 33022, 35375, 35376, 35379, 35380, 35382, 35384, 35385, 35387, 37577, 37578, 37580, 37581, 37582, 37583, 37584, 37585, 37586, 37587, 37588 & 39886 of 2023, 155, 159, 161 & 3397 of 2024
Decided On : 23-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pabitra Ku. Nayak, Advocate Mr. Subrat Ku. Das, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Ghose, A.G.A.

The Odisha Land Reforms Act applies to urban homestead lands, and prior permission is required for their transfer, upholding the registering authority's jurisdiction to refuse registration for lack of such permission.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960 - Section 22 - Issue of exemption for homestead lands in urban areas - The court addressed whether Section 22 applies to urban homestead lands, concluding that urban inclusion does not exempt from the OLR provisions - No evidence was presented showing lands used for non-agricultural purposes - The registered authority's refusal of registration without written permission was upheld as lawful jurisdiction under the Act. (Paras 1, 7, 12, 18)

(B) Jurisdiction of Registering Authority - The court ruled that the registering officer possesses the authority to refuse registration based on lack of prior permission from the Revenue Authority, thus legitimizing their action. (Paras 17)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitions arose challenges against the refusal of registration of sale deeds involving Scheduled Tribe property to non-ST individuals, based on the interpretation of the Odisha Land Reforms Act and its applicability in urban zones. The properties were recorded as homestead lands within the Sambalpur Municipal Corporation area and were denied registration for lack of written permission as required by Section 22.

Findings of Court:
The court directed that the relevant authorities must investigate the lands' usability for agricultural purposes and provide a report within sixty days for re-assessment regarding the land's classification under the OLR Act.

Issues: The principal issues were whether homestead lands in urban settings are exempt from the provisions of the OLR Act and the authority of the registering officer to refuse registrations based on agricultural usability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that urban categorization does not eliminate the applicability of Section 22 of the OLR Act and that prior permission is required for transfers of homestead lands. The authority of the registering officer to refuse registration based on lack of such permission was confirmed.

Result: All writ petitions disposed of with directions for further inquiry.

Table of Content
1. issues regarding land registration under olr act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. clarifies provisions of the olr act. (Para 5 , 6)
3. petitioners' argument on land exemptions. (Para 7 , 8)
4. judicial interpretations of land definitions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court's inquiry into land use and officer authority. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. court's final judgment and directions. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. The common issues involved in all the writ petitions are that, whether the provisions contained in Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960 are exempted for homestead lands situated in urban areas? And secondly, whether the notification issued by the Planning Authority dated 14th July, 1972 and other subsequent notifications issued by the Municipal Corporation to include the properties in the Municipal area would itself be sufficient to exclude the properties from the purview of the provisions of the OLR Act in terms of Section 73(c).

2. Admittedly, the properties involved in each writ petition have been recorded as homestead land and coming within Sambalpur Municipal Corporation area.

3. The Petitioners have presented their respective deed of transfer before the registering authority which was rejected for want of written permission in terms of Section 22 (1) of the OLR Act. The appeals preferred against such impugned orders of the registering authority have also been dismissed.

4. The facts in the leading case, i.e. WP(C) No.27920 of 2023 are to the effect that, the Petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe community, executed the deed of sale in favour of a person belonging to Non-ST category and presented the same before the Registering Authority, Sambalpur, who refused to register the same for want of written permission by order dated 30th May, 2023. Against said order of the Registering Authority the Petitioner preferred appeal. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide impugned order dated 16th August, 2023 under Annexure-5.

5. Section 22 of the OLR Act reads as follows:-

22. Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes

(1). Any transfer of holding or part thereof by a raiyat, belonging to a Scheduled Tribes shall be void except where it is in favour of –

(a) a person belong to a Scheduled Tribe; or

(b) a person not belong to a Scheduled Tribe when such transfer is made with the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer:

Provided that in case of a transfer by sale, the Revenue Officer shall not grant such permission unless he is satisfied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe willing to pay the market price for the land is not available, and in case of a gift unless he is satisfied about the bona fides thereof.

(2) The State Government may, having regard to the law and custom applicable to any area prior to the date of commencement of this Act by notification, direct that the restrictions provided in Sub-section (1) shall not apply to lands situated in such area or belonging to any particular tribe throughout the State or in any part of it.

(3) Except with the written permission of the Revenue Officer, no such holding shall be sold in execution of a decree to any person not belong to a Scheduled Tribe.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any document required to be registered under the provisions of Clause (a) to Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, (16 of 1908) purports to effect transfer for a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, in favour of a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, no Registering Officer appointed under that Act shall register any such documents, unless such documents is accompanied by the written permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer.

(5) The provisions contained in Sub-section (1) to (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis, to the transfer of a holding or part thereof a raiyat belong to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top