A sale of land during Ceiling Proceedings is valid if the land was not vested with the government post-proceedings; the vendee cannot be penalized for vendor's non-compliance with legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. These Appellants in filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) assail the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada, in Title Suit No. 04 of 2008.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the Respondent being the unsuccessful Plaintiff under Section-96 of the Code has been allowed and thereby, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhawanipatna in Civil Suit No.95 of 2001 have been set aside. The Respondent as the Plaintiff being non-suited by the Trial Court in respect of the Principal reliefs claimed; has been successful in obtaining a decree of declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule-A of the plaint which corresponds to Schedule-C as indicated therein and the Appellants (Defendants) therein have been permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the Respondent (Plaintiff) over the suit land.

It is stated here that the Appellant No.1 (Defendant no.1) is the son of the Appellant No.2 (Defendant No.2) and they together contested the suit as well as the First Appeal. The Appellant No.2 (Defendant No.2) having died during pendency of this Appeal, his legal representatives other than the Appellant No.1(Defendant No.1) have also come on record have pursuing this Appeal against the Respondent (Plaintiff).

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. Plaintiff’s case is that he had purchased the suit land from Defendant No.2 by registered sale-deed dated 22.05.1976 for a consideration of Rs.3,500/-. It is stated that Defendant No.2 in order to meet his household expenses, when proposed to sale the suit land, the Plaintiff agreed and accordingly, the consideration for the said sale being fixed finally, the sale-deed come to be executed by Defendant No.2 which stood registered.

It is also stated that pursuant to the said sale, the Plaintiff was delivered with the possession of the suit land by Defendant No.2 and since then he remained in possession of the said land.

The fact however stood that in the year 1975, the Tahasildar, Kalahandi had initiated a Ceiling Proceeding under Chapter-IV of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT , 1960 (for short, ‘the OLR Act’) against the Defendant No.2 as a ceiling surplus land holder. The Plaintiff having came to know about the said proceeding being the lawful purchaser of the suit land has intervened by filing objection. The Competent Authority after recording the claim of the Plaintiff included the suit land within the land retained by the Defendant No.2 as within the ceiling area. It is further stated during that Proceeding, the Defendant No.2 admitted possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land. When the matter stood thus, the current settlement operation commenced. The Plaintiff then produced his sale-deed before the Settlement Authority. However, the Settlement Authority recorded the land in the name of the Defendants leaving a note of possession of the said land in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff then approached the Tahasildar, Kalahandi by filing Mutation Case No. 661 of 1991. The Tahasildar allowed the said application and passed an order of mutation of the said land in favour of the