Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 87 (ORI)

Kartika Dalai v. Collector, Balasore

2019-02-04

A.K.RATH

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the order dated 10.10.2013, passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore, opposite party no.3 in OLR Case No.5 of 2005, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to restore the land under Sec.23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short 'Act'). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a schedule caste person. His caste is 'Dandachhatra Majhi'. The land in question has been sold to Paramananda Barik, opposite party no.4 by his brothers and mother without obtaining permission from the competent authority as required under Sec.23 of the Act. He is in possession of the land. The opposite party no.4 is trying to dispossess him from the land. With the above factual scenario, he filed an application under Sec.23 of the Act before the Sub-Collector, Balasore. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the opposite party no.4 entered appearance and filed his show-cause stating inter alia that the vendor of the opposite party no.4 is not a party to the case. The petitioner does not belong to schedule caste category. In the Major Settlement ROR as well as in the registered sale deed, the caste of the vendors had mentioned as 'Khandayat'. He had purchased the land from the petitioner's co-sharers. Permission under Sec.22 of the Act is not sine qua non to sale the land. 4. The Sub-Collector came to hold that the petition is not maintainable. The enquiry report of the Tahasildar reveals that the caste of the petitioner has been mentioned as 'Dandachhatra Majhi'. In the Record of Rights, the caste has been mentioned as 'Khandayat'. The petitioner is in possession over his share for an area of Ac0.021/2 dec. and opposite party no.4 is in possession of an area of Ac0.071/2 dec. of land out of total area of Ac0.10 dec. The vendors of opposite party no.4, who are the co-sharers of the petitioner, have no objection with regard to possession of the said land by the opposite party no.4. The interest of the petitioner has not been hampered. The vendors of opposite party no.4 have not filed any petition under Sec.23 of the Act for restoration of the suit land in their favour. In the event the suit land is restored to the vendors or legal heirs of the vendors, it will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The vendors of opposite party no.4 have not filed any petition under Sec.23 of the Act for restoration of the suit land in their favour. In the event the suit land is restored to the vendors or legal heirs of the vendors, it will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to substantiate that the vendors of opposite party no.4 belong to schedule caste. Held so, it rejected the petition. 5. Heard Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mohanty 2, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Rama Chandra Jena, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a schedule caste person. He belongs to 'Dandachhatra Majhi'. The caste 'Dandachhatra Majhi' has been subsequently added to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 by way of amendment. The amendment is clarificatory in nature. It will relate back to the year 1950. 7. Per contra, Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that the amendment shall take effect from the date of amendment. 8. Per contra, Mr. R. C. Jena, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 submits that petitioner is not a schedule caste person. The Record of Rights vide Ext.1 reveals that he belongs to 'Khandayat' by caste. The vendors of the opposite party no.4 have not filed any application for restoration of the suit. Since they are 'Khandayat' by caste, the amendment made to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order (Second Amend) Act, 2002, has no application to the facts of this case. 9. Admittedly, the opposite party no.4 has purchased the lands from the brothers and mother of the petitioner by means of three registered sale deeds dated 4.5.2001, 21.12.2001 and 16.3.2005 respectively. The Record of Rights reveals that the vendors of the opposite party no.4 are 'Khandayat' by caste. The sale deeds also reveal the same. The opposite party no.4 cannot make a roving enquiry to find out the caste of the vendors. The opposite party no.4 is a bonafide purchaser of value. The Records of Right reveal that the brothers of the petitioner belong to 'Khandayat' by caste. The amendment made to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order (Second Amend) Act, 2002 has no application to the facts of this case. The opposite party no.4 is a bonafide purchaser of value. The Records of Right reveal that the brothers of the petitioner belong to 'Khandayat' by caste. The amendment made to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order (Second Amend) Act, 2002 has no application to the facts of this case. The impugned order does not suffer any infirmity or illegality, warranting interference of this Court. 10. In the wake of the aforesaid, the writ application, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.