LINECAI GAMANGO Vs. DAYANIDHI JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings of these appeals before this Court arise out of the Revenue Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 150 to 156 of 1976 filed by the appellants separately against the separate respondents under the provisions of Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956 before the Project Administrator, I.T.D.A., Parlakhemundie and Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam in the State of Orissa. The cases were filed by the appellants who belong to Scheduled Tribe of Khariaguda village in Gumma block whereas the respondents who have been impleaded as opposite parties in different cases are Pano Christians of Asharyaguda village. It appears that the land in dispute falls in village Khariaguda which is a scheduled area under the provisions of the Regulation No. 2 of 1956. The claim of the appellants who filed different cases is that the land belongs to them but it has been forcibly occupied by the respondents. The cases were decided in favour of the appellants with a direction for restoration of suit land to them vide order dated 28-2-1979 passed by O.S.D., Parlakhemundie. On appeal, however, the Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chatrapur, remanded the cases for further inquiry with an observation that the identity of the suit land was to be ascertained in reference to kabala of 5-5-1927 T.S. No. 16/61 with assignment of plot numbers etc. in the said settlement.

(2.) Before further proceedings with the matters, it would be relevant to mention that the State of Orissa promulgated the Regulation in exercise of power conferred by sub-para (2) of para 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, known as the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956, known as the Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956, to be referred to as such hereinafter. According to Cl. (f) of S. 2, "Transfer of immovable property" has been defined to mean :

(3.) We further find that under sub-section (2) of S. 5 even a surrender or relinquishment is deemed to be a transfer of property within the meaning of the Regulation with certain exceptions. It is thus clear that generally subject to certain exceptions, alienation of immovable property by a tribal to a non-tribal is impermissible and it is invalid, null and void.