Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 190 (ORI)

Somanatha Mattam v. Narasingh Patro

2017-02-21

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated 5.9.1998 & 28.11.2003 passed by the competent authorities under the Regulation-2 of 1956 as appearing at Annexures-1 & 2 respectively. 2. Short background involved in this case is that the present petitioners filed a petition under Section 3(3) of the Regulation 2 of 1956 complaining therein that they belong to Scheduled Tribe being “Konda Dora” by caste, they are the owners of the disputed lands, being Non S.T. (General) the private opposite parties have purchased the disputed land without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and therefore, on the premises of invalid sale prayed therein for restoration of the suit land. Consequently, petitioners raised a claim that since the transfer of land between the Scheduled Tribe and Non-Scheduled Tribes is hit by the provisions contained in the Regulation-2 of 1956, there should be an order of restoration of the suit land in their favour. The private opposite parties therein on their appearance brought to the notice of the authority that the case land originally belonged to the petitioners, who had transferred the same to one Smt. A. Babu, W/o-Babu Das who have subsequently transferred the land to the private opposite parties. The private opposite parties not only claimed that there is no sale taken place between the petitioners and them but also by way of evidence attempted to establish that the petitioners even do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community. Considering the rival contentions of the parties therein and the evidence oral as well as materials available on record, the original authority dismissed the application as not maintainable after observing that the transfer involved has been instituted in between Non S.T. and therefore, there is no contravention of the provisions contained in Section 3(I) of the Regulation-2 of 1956. In appeal the appellate authority by its order vide Annexure-2 confirmed the view of the original authority. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, Sri V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that there was sufficient material available before the authorities below establishing that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe community and thus, the view of both the authorities below that the transaction involved is in between Non S.T., is erroneous for being contrary to the materials available on record. Referring to a caste certificate, learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to establish that the caste certificate also confirms the stand taken by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the private opposite party Nos.1 & 2 on the other hand, referring to the pleadings of the parties recorded by the authorities below, evidence recorded by the original authority, the enquiry reports obtained during original proceeding, apart from raising an objection that there is no sale involving the petitioners and the private opposite parties also submitted that the materials produced did not establish the case of the petitioners that they belong to Scheduled Tribe community. Further the caste certificate being obtained subsequent to the transaction at the time of initiation of the proceeding was of no use in the case. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties also contended that for the concurrent finding of the authorities below holding that the petitioners did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community, there is no scope for interfering in the impugned orders. 5. Specific case of the private opposite parties in the authorities below that they have purchased the case land from one Smt. A. Babu under registered document No.2585 dated 26.7.1996 and the vendor of the private opposite parties had purchased the same under the registered document No.3028 of 89 from the petitioners. There is absolutely no denial to the above specific case of the private opposite parties. This makes it clear that there is absolutely no transaction in between the petitioners and the private opposite parties. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after perusal of the impugned orders, this Court finds, there is a clear recording of admission by both the parties that even though the land originally belong to the petitioners in the first hand but the petitioners transferred the land to one A. Babu, W/o-Babu Das, who have subsequently transferred the case land to the opposite party No.2 herein. For the clear recording of the above statement and for the admission of the parties, this Court finds, there appears, there is no transfer of the suit land between the petitioners and the private opposite parties. On being directed, learned State Counsel produced the case records involving both the proceedings. For the clear recording of the above statement and for the admission of the parties, this Court finds, there appears, there is no transfer of the suit land between the petitioners and the private opposite parties. On being directed, learned State Counsel produced the case records involving both the proceedings. Scan of case record, this Court also has the occasion to go through the sale deeds of the year 1989 being filed by the present petitioners during the trial which clearly establishes that the transaction involving the disputed property in the 1st hand was in between the petitioners and Smt. A. Babu, W/o-Sri Babu Das with categoric indication of caste of the petitioners as Mulia. The sale deed produced by the private opposite parties is also available on record which clearly establishes that in the 2nd stage the disputed land has been sold by Smt. A. Babu to the private opposite parties which clearly establishes that there is no transaction between the petitioners and the private opposite parties. Therefore, a case under Section 3(I) at the instance of the petitioners as against the opposite party Nos.1 or 2 was per se not maintainable. 6. Now coming to the other aspects involved in the matter particularly on the aspect as to whether the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe community or not, looking to the materials available on record, this Court finds, after going through a report in the spot enquiry, and scan of the oral and material evidence recorded by it, the original authority came to a categoric finding that the petitioners did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community which finding has also been confirmed by the appellate authority. For the concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts on this particular aspect, this Court finds no scope for interfering in the same in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. For the findings of this Court on both the counts involved in the matter, this Court finds, there is no error in the impugned orders and thus, the writ petition stands dismissed for having no merit. No Cost.