JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 25.8.2016 passed by the opposite party no. 3 vide Annexure-5 and the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the opposite party no.4 as appellate authority vide Annexure-6 and further seeking a mandamus against the opposite party no.3 directing him to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the particular disputed property mentioned in the sale deed. 2. Short background involved in the case is that Sri Hata Behera, the petitioner owning a piece of land in Khata No.611/2479 covered under Plot No.12/6076 measuring an area Ac.0.760 decimals in Mouza-Bhubaneswar Sahar, Unit No.41, Chandrasekharpur with kisam-homestead. To establish the status of land, the petitioner has filed khatian involving plot appearing at Annexure-1. Since the Mouza-Chandrasekharpur has been included in the Bhubaneswar Town Planning Area, for planning and development purpose, the petitioner's land comes within the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation as well as the Bhubaneswar Development Authority. Petitioner in order to develop the land, decided to construct multi-storied building by entering into a memorandum of understanding with one M/s. Shree Jagannath Construction Pvt. Ltd. and as the situation developed, the petitioner applied for construction of multi-storied building over the land in question involving Annexure-1.The Bhubaneswar Development Authority on consideration of the entire aspect granted the petitioner approval of plan of B+G+7 storied building vide Annexure-3. Construction of the building having been completed in all respect, further, being ready for sale to the intending buyers, who had already booked for purchasing the flats therein and paid advance token money, petitioner submitted sale deed involving one Smt. Rashmita Pattanaik for sale of Flat No.701 therein following his share before the Registering Authority for registration of the same. The registration being denied in the first instance, the petitioner moved W.P.(C).No.6991 of 2015 challenging the action of the Registering Authority. 3. During course of argument, the petitioner understanding the difficulties in the sale deed, chose to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty of the Court to submit a corrected sale deed for its registration before the competent authority. As undertaken, the petitioner submitted a corrected sale deed for it's registration by the competent authority vide Annexure-4. 3. During course of argument, the petitioner understanding the difficulties in the sale deed, chose to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty of the Court to submit a corrected sale deed for its registration before the competent authority. As undertaken, the petitioner submitted a corrected sale deed for it's registration by the competent authority vide Annexure-4. This time, the registration of the instrument has been denied by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar by his order dated 25.8.2016 on the premises that since the concept of apartment connotes two folds of ownership, firstly an absolute ownership in the particular apartment and secondly joint, undivided as well as un-divisible co-ownership of such percentage of interest in the common areas and facilities as may be specified in the sale deed of apartment as appearing at Annexure-5. This order being challenged in appeal, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 19.10.2016 observing that the petitioner i.e. appellant therein failed to provide sufficient papers/notifications to substantiate his case, so far as permission of competent authority for sale of S.C. person land to Non-S.C. person and other things are concerned. Further, on perusal of report of the Sub-Registrar, the appellate authority also observed that the sale deed is without mentioning the corresponding land, the undivided proportionate share of land as share of interest in other common facility in the proposed sale deed. 4. Assailing the impugned orders, Sri Baug, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner attacking the order of the original authority vide Annexure 5 referring to the sale deed appearing at Annexure-4 submitted that the sale deed has a clear mentioning of the land involved therein and not only that the sale deed also contained a clear statement regarding the use of interest in the common area as well as facilities provided to the vendee. Sri Baug, learned counsel further contended that the order at Annexure-5 is not only contrary to the material information available in the instrument but also based on non-application of mind. Similarly, attacking the order at Annexure-6 passed by the appellate authority, Sri Baug, learned counsel contended that since the multistoried building has already been constructed with due permission of the competent authority over the disputed land with status of the land being homestead, as appearing in khatian, matter remains only for sale of flats. Similarly, attacking the order at Annexure-6 passed by the appellate authority, Sri Baug, learned counsel contended that since the multistoried building has already been constructed with due permission of the competent authority over the disputed land with status of the land being homestead, as appearing in khatian, matter remains only for sale of flats. So, there is no question of sale of land in any case any further except mentioning of proportionate share in the respective sale deeds and therefore, the appellate authority dismissing the appeal following the provisions of O.L.R. Act is against law. Further, the appellate authority has also travelled beyond the questions raised by the original authority and under the circumstance, Sri Baug, requested this Court for interfering in both the orders and issuing necessary mandamus facilitating registration of the portion of the flat involving Annexure-4. 5. Sri Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State referring to the provisions contained in Sub-Section 4 of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, while objecting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the provision contained therein, the sale deed since involved land belonging to Scheduled Caste, must be accompanied by the written permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer. Further, referring to the counter affidavit and the pleadings therein, Sri Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that the provision of O.L.R. Act is very much applicable to the present case and thus contended that there is no infirmity in either of the impugned orders leaving any scope for this Court for interfering in the same. 6. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the disputed land following the declaration in the khatian not only remains in the status of Gharabari but also remains under the planning of Bhubaneswar Sahar and thus coming under the control of Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar as well as Bhubaneswar Development Authority. Further, the record-of-right discloses the land involved is at Mouza-Bhubaneswar Sahar, Unit No.41, Chandrasekharpur. This area having already come under the Comprehensive Development Plan area of Bhubaneswar "Development Authority and the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, can under no circumstance be treated as agriculture land. Besides, since the record-of-right already indicates the land is of the category of homestead, there is no scope otherwise to treat the land involved as agriculture land so as to apply the provisions under O.L.R. Act. Besides, since the record-of-right already indicates the land is of the category of homestead, there is no scope otherwise to treat the land involved as agriculture land so as to apply the provisions under O.L.R. Act. There is no dispute that the construction over the disputed land is undertaken by Sri Hata Behera, which clearly appears from the approval of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority for construction of the building over the disputed plot appearing at Annexure-3.Therefore, there is also no dispute that multi-storied residential apartment/building has come up over the disputed plot. Now, looking to the contents of the instrument presented for registration vide Annexure-4, this Court finds Sri Hata Behera, the petitioner is the vendor whereas Smt. Rashmita Pattanaik is the vendee. The instrument involving sale of a flat measuring 1900 sqfts within a super built up area, the sale deed clearly described the property involved therein. Further, the sale deed also has a clear disclosure on right and use of common area, common spaces, parking, lobbies, staircases and any other portion of the said building including the undivided share of each flat except the flat as clearly appearing at paragraph-7 of the copy of the sale deed. Thus, this Court finds the observation of the authorities below with regard to non-disclosure of correspondent land, the undivided proportionate share of land and the sale of interest in other common facilities in the proposed sale deed runs contrary to the information borne in the sale deed and there has been a mechanical disposal of registration issue making the obstructions in the above regard illegal. Now, coming to assess the submission of the rival parties on the issue of necessity of permission from competent authority under the Registration Act before sale of flats, the case hinges on determination on the question as to whether in case of sale of a portion of a flat, permission, as required under Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 is required or not. Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act,1960 reads as follows: 22. Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act,1960 reads as follows: 22. Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes - (1) Any transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void except where it is in favour of - (a) a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe or (b) a person not belonging 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 subsection (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 belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. (4) Not withstanding 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 purports to effect transfer of 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 document, unless such document is accompanied by the written permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer. (5) The provisions contained in sub-sections (1) to (4) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the transfer of a holding or part thereof of a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Caste. (5) The provisions contained in sub-sections (1) to (4) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the transfer of a holding or part thereof of a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Caste. (6) Nothing in this section shall apply - (a) to any sale in execution of a money decree passed, or to any transfer by way of mortgage executed, in favour of any scheduled bank or in favour of any bank to which the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 applies; and (b) to any transfer by a member of a Scheduled Tribe within a Scheduled Area. Reading of the provision contained at Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act leaves no doubt that any transaction of holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Caste to a non-Scheduled Caste shall remain void unless it accompanies a written permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer. 7. The definition "holding" as placed in Sub-Section-11 of Section 2 of the O.L.R. Act reads as hereunder: "Holding means a parcel of parcels of land forming the subject of a separate tenancy;" Similarly, "land" is also defined under Sub-Section 14 of Section 2 of the O.L.R. Act reads as hereunder: "Land" means land of different classes used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and include homestead. It is also necessary to take note of the defecation of "homestead" in the O.L.R. Act. Section 2 Sub-Section 12 dealing with 'homestead" reads as hereunder. "Homestead" means any land, whether or not recorded as such, ordinarily used as house-site, ancillary or incidental to agriculture. 8. Reading of the definition "holding", "homestead" and "land" together, it leads to one conclusion that holding does not only include land but also includes land of different classes used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes. Looking to the khatian issued by the competent authority available at Annexure-1, it leaves no doubt that the land involved is already in the status of homestead. Further, reading of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, it also makes it clear that the restriction contemplated in Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act only involved transfer of holding. Looking to the khatian issued by the competent authority available at Annexure-1, it leaves no doubt that the land involved is already in the status of homestead. Further, reading of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, it also makes it clear that the restriction contemplated in Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act only involved transfer of holding. Going through the instrument submitted by the petitioner and as gathered from the submission of respective parties, this Court finds that there is no doubt that there is no involvement of sale of holding and the sale deed only involved sale of a portion of the super structure standing over the holding with mentioning of proportionate share. Further, since admittedly the particular land is already included in the Comprehensive Development Plan Area in Bhubaneswar in consideration of which there is already a plan approval by the competent authority, these lands ought to be kept away from the purview of the O.L.R. Act particularly looking to the status of the land, which has already been converted to homestead and remain unchallenged as on date. 9. For the discussions made here in above and particularly keeping in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section 11, 12 and 14 of Section 2 as well as clear provisions in Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, this Court finds the findings of the both the authorities not only become bad in law but at the same time both the authorities below have also misdirected themselves dealing the issue involved. 10. Under the circumstance while interfering in both the impugned orders, this Court sets aside the impugned orders vide Annexures-5 and 6 and directs the opposite party no.3 to register the instrument submitted by the petitioner, copy of which is available at Annexure-4 within a period of seven days from the date of supply of the certified copy of this judgment. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. No cost. Final Result : Allowed