Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27214 (ORI)

Ramanimani Behera v. Collector, Mayurbhanj

2026-01-15

A C Behera

body2026
JUDGMENT : A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 24.06.2014(Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.05 of 2013 by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) and the impugned order dated 23.04.2015 (Annexure-4) passed in OLR (Revision) Case No.02 of 2014 by the Collector, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.1). 2 . The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing the same is that, the case land originally belonged to the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, i.e., Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu Behera. The RoR of the case land was prepared in the name of the aforesaid predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5. The predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, i.e., Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu Behera as well as Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 belong to Schedule Caste community having their Sub-caste “Chamara”. The petitioner belongs to general caste community having her Sub-caste “Kumbhara”. The sale deeds vide RSD No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and RSD No.4644 dated 11.11.1972 in respect of the case land was executed by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, i.e., Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu Behera in favour of the petitioner without obtaining any permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 from the competent authority for selling the said case land in favour of the petitioner. As the aforesaid two sale deeds in respect of the case land were executed by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner without obtaining any permission from the competent authority for selling the same, for which, the sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and the sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972(Annexure-1 series) are void. Therefore, the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 filed a case vide OLR Case No.4 of 2012 under Section 23 of the OLR Act before the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3) praying for restoration of possession of the case land in their favour. Therefore, the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 filed a case vide OLR Case No.4 of 2012 under Section 23 of the OLR Act before the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3) praying for restoration of possession of the case land in their favour. After hearing from both the sides, as per the final order dated 28.05.2013(Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.04 of 2012, the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3) dismissed to the OLR Case No.04 of 2012 under Section 23 of the OLR Act, 1960 of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 assigning the reasons that, “the transferee of the case land, i.e., Opposite Partyin OLR Case No.04 of 2012 (petitioner in this writ petition) has been possessing the case land since the date of transfer and she has not been dispossessed at any point of time till date from the same. For which, she is found to be in possession over the case land belonging to the member of S.C. community for over 30 years. Therefore, her possession through invalid deeds over the case land would be adverse and when the prayer for restoration of possession of the case land has been made by the petitioners in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 (Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition) after 30 years and when, in the instant case, the Opposite Party (petitioner in this writ petition) has acquired title through prescription by remaining in possession over the case land for more than 30 years, then, the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the case land in their favour after expiry of 30 years deserves no consideration and accordingly, rejected to the OLR Case No.04 of 2012 under Section 23 of the OLR Act of the petitioners(Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition).” 3. On being dissatisfied with the above impugned order dated 28.05.2013(Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 by the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3), the petitioners thereof preferred an appeal vide OLR Appeal No.05 of 2013 under Section 58 of the OLR Act, 1960 being the appellants before the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) against the Opposite Party vide OLR Case No.04 of 2012 arraying her as respondent. 4 . 4 . After hearing from both the sides, the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) allowed that OLR Appeal No.05 of 2013 filed by the appellants (Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition) as per its final order dated 24.06.2014(Annexure-3) and set aside to the impugned order dated 28.05.2013(Annexure-2) passed by the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3) in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 and directed for restoration of the case land in favour of the petitioners in OLR Appeal No.05 of 2013 (Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition) assigning the reasons that, “Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 came into force in the State of Orissa w.e.f. 01.10.1965 and the sale deeds in respect of the case land were executed in the year 1969 and 1972 respectively and when, after enforcement of the OLR Act, without obtaining any permission from the competent authority, the said sale deeds in respect of the case land vide sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972 have been executed, then, the said sale deeds are void. Therefore, the possession of the Opposite Party in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 in respect of the case land is illegal.” 5 . On being aggrieved with that impugned order dated 24.06.2014(Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.05 of 2013 by the Opposite Party No.2 against the Opposite Parties in OLR Case No.04 of 2012, she(Opposite Party in OLR Case No.04 of 2012) challenged the same by filing revision vide OLR (Revision) No.02 of 2014 under Section 59(1) of the OLR Act, 1960 before the Collector, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.1) against the petitioners in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 arraying them as Opposite Parties. After hearing from both the sides, the Collector, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.1) dismissed to that OLR (Revision) No.2 of 2014 of the Opposite Party in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 as per its final order dated 23.04.2015(Annexure-4) and confirmed to the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) in OLR Case No.05 of 2013 assigning the reasons that, “The vendors in the sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972 belong to schedule caste community having their Sub-caste “Chamara” and the vendee of the said sale deeds(Opposite Parties in OLR Case No.04 of 2012) belong to general caste community having her Sub-caste “Kumbhara” and due to lack of prior permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 for selling the case land in favour of the vendee, the said sale deeds are invalid. Because, the transfer of the case land has been made in the year 1969 and 1972 much after coming into force of Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960, i.e., after 01.10.1965. Therefore, the possession of the vendee over the case land on the basis of the said sale deeds cannot adverse against the vendors as well as their successors, i.e., the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition.” 6. On being aggrieved with the said order dated 23.04.2015(Annexure-4) passed in OLR (revision) Case No.02 of 2014 by the Collector, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.1), the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.04.2015(Annexure-4) passed in OLR(Revision) No.02 of 2014 by the Opposite Party No.1 and the impugned order dated 24.06.2014(Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.5 of 2013 by the Opposite Party No.2. 7 . I have already heard from the leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5. 8 . In order to assail the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions :- (i) 1985(II) OLR-309 (ii) 2004(II) OLR(S.C.)-117 9. 7 . I have already heard from the leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5. 8 . In order to assail the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions :- (i) 1985(II) OLR-309 (ii) 2004(II) OLR(S.C.)-117 9. On the basis of the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj and the Collector, Mayurbhanj, the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is as follows :- (1) Whether, the Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 is applicable to the sale deeds dated 06.06.1969 and dated 11.11.1972 executed by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner and whether, due to lack of permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960, the said sale deeds are invalid under law? (2) Whether, the possession of the petitioner/vendee on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972(Annexure-1 series) over the case land is adverse against the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 and her possession over the same has matured to title? (3) Whether, the orders vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj and the Collector, Mayurbhanj setting aside the order dated 28.05.2013 passed in OLR No.04 of 2012 by the Sub-collector, Kaptipada are sustainable under law? 10 . In order to ascertain the sustainability and justifiability of the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the Collector, Mayurbhanj, the above three points fixed for determination are required to be discussed and analyzed serially and chronologically one after another. 11 . 10 . In order to ascertain the sustainability and justifiability of the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the Collector, Mayurbhanj, the above three points fixed for determination are required to be discussed and analyzed serially and chronologically one after another. 11 . So far as 1st point whether, the Section 22 of the OLR Act is applicable to the sale deeds dated 06.06.1969 and dated 11.11.1972 executed by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner and whether due to lack of permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960, the said sale deeds are invalid under law is concerned; The sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972 have been executed by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 being the persons of Schedule Caste community having their Sub- caste “Chamara” in favour of the general caste person, i.e., petitioner having her Sub-caste “Kumbhara” without obtaining any permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960. 12 . It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Section 22 of the OLR Act is not applicable to the sale deeds dated 06.06.1969 and dated 11.11.1972, as the Section 22 of the OLR Act was inserted into the statute book of the OLR Act in the year 1974, i.e., much after the execution of the above sale deeds in respect of the case land in favour of the petitioner. 13. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding inapplicability of Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 to the sale deeds of the year 1969 and 1972 in respect of the case land is not acceptable under law. Because, on this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Chandramani Patel vrs. Collector : reported in 1989(II) OLR-38 that, transfer, if made prior to the Act come into force, i.e., prior to 01.10.1965, the transfer is not hit by Section 22 of the OLR Act. In that case, the transfer is not invalid. (ii) In a case between Laxmidhar Mahalik and others vrs. Collector : reported in 1989(II) OLR-38 that, transfer, if made prior to the Act come into force, i.e., prior to 01.10.1965, the transfer is not hit by Section 22 of the OLR Act. In that case, the transfer is not invalid. (ii) In a case between Laxmidhar Mahalik and others vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2000(I) OLR-226 that, the sale deed dated 18.02.1969 being in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 22 of the OLR Act was contrary to law and was rightly declared to be invalid, because, transfer was made by S.C. person in favour of the non-S.C. person. (iii) In a case between Ramnaresh Singh vrs. Padmalachan Jaypuria(Dead) and After Him Golap Devi and others : reported in 76(1993) CLT-367 and in a case between Karunakar Gond vrs. Pitabas Sahu , reported in 1986(I) OLR-14 that, the aim and object of Section 22 of the OLR Act is to safeguard the interest of the weaker sections of the society and to improve their conditions by providing that, any transfer except in terms of provisions of Section 22 of the OLR Act would be null and void. Because, the OLR Act being a benevolent protective legislation, interpretation would be liberal, so that, the object of legislation is fully satisfied to use protective umbrella. (iv) In a case between Baidhar Behera vrs. The Special Officer, O.L.R., Central Division and others : reported in 1990(I) OLR-369 that, transfer was made on 16.04.1968, the vendor made an application for permission on 07.02.1968 and permission was given on 09.05.1968—Held the document is void and subsequent permission cannot legalize such transfer. (v) In a case between Purna Chandra Behera vrs. Dibakar Behera and others : reported in 108(2009) CLT-463 — Transaction entered in contravention of Section 22 of the OLR Act, the said transaction is void ab initio. Non-observation of the said provisions attracts dispossession and requires restoration of the properties to the transferor or his legally assignee. (vi) In a case between Satyabhama Dei vrs. Member Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack and others : reported in 2017(I) CLR-1054 that, permission for sale applied on dated 28.02.1972, the sale deed executed on 03.03.1972 is invalid. (vii) In a case between Sada Nanda Mohanta vrs. (vi) In a case between Satyabhama Dei vrs. Member Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack and others : reported in 2017(I) CLR-1054 that, permission for sale applied on dated 28.02.1972, the sale deed executed on 03.03.1972 is invalid. (vii) In a case between Sada Nanda Mohanta vrs. Dusmanta Patra and others : reported in 2010(II) CLR-851 that, registered sale deed in the year 1968 executed by a person belonged to “Patra Tanti” in favour of non-schedule caste person, permission was necessary. Sale deed admitting title and possession executed neither prior to oral sale nor adverse possession plea available. (viii) In a case between Sada Nanda Mohanta vrs. Dusmanta Patra and others : reported in 2010(2) OJR-709 that, concurrent finding of fact not taking prior permission of the competent authority to transfer the land of Schedule Caste is not liable to be interfered with.( Para-8 14 . In view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, due to lack of permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act for transferring the case land by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner through sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972, the said deeds are void ab initio. For which, the findings and observations made by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 that, the said sale deeds dated 06.06.1969 and 11.11.1972 in respect of the case land in favour of the petitioner are invalid cannot be held as erroneous under law. For which, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner indicated in Para No.8 of this judgment have become inapplicable to this matter at hand for the reasons assigned above. 15 . So far as the 2 nd point, i.e., whether the possession of the petitioner/vendee on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972 over the case land is adverse against the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 and her possession over the same has matured to title is concerned; On this aspect, the following decisions are as follows:- (i) In a case between Lincai Gamango vrs. Dayanidhi Jena and others : reported in AIR 2004 S.C.-3457 that, adverse possession operates on an alienable right. The title by adverse possession cannot be claimed over the land, on which, alienation is prohibited. Dayanidhi Jena and others : reported in AIR 2004 S.C.-3457 that, adverse possession operates on an alienable right. The title by adverse possession cannot be claimed over the land, on which, alienation is prohibited. (ii) In a case between David Ledison alias Adison Lima and others vrs. Addl. District Magistrate, Rayagada and others : reported in 2005(I) CLR-6 that, the petitioners, who are unauthorized and illegal possession, cannot claim adverse possession. 16 . When, it has already been held as per the discussions and observations made in the afore-going point No.1 that, the sale deeds in respect of the case land were of the year 1969 and 1972 and the said deeds are invalid and void ab initio on the ground of execution of the same in contravention of Section 22 of the OLR Act, i.e., without permission, then, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the claim of the title of the petitioner over the case land through adverse possession cannot be acceptable under law. For which, the findings and observations made by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in the impugned orders dated 24.06.2014 and 23.04.2015 vide Annexures-3 and 4 regarding the non-tenability of the claim of adverse possession raised by the petitioner over the case land cannot be held as erroneous. 17 . So far as the 3 rd and last point raised on behalf of the petitioner whether, the orders vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj and the Collector, Mayurbhanj setting aside the order dated 28.05.2013 passed in OLR No.04 of 2012 by the Sub- collector, Kaptipada are sustainable under law is concerned, When, as per the findings and observations made in the afore-going point Nos.1 and 2, it has already been held that, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned judgments vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are not acceptable under law, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner does not arise. 18 . 18 . As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, the impugned orders dated 24.06.2014 and 23.04.2015 vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the Collector, Mayurbhanj are not interferable through this writ petition filed by the petitioner, then at this juncture, this writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed. 19 . Therefore, it is held that, there is no merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must fail. 20 . In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on contest. 21 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.