SRI. RANJIT SAHU Vs. CHINTAMANI SETHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suo motu proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the allegation that the Petitioner being a non -Scheduled Caste had purchased the disputed land from one Naba Sethi, who belongs to Scheduled Caste by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15 -1 -1966, without prior permission of the competent authority as required under Section 22 of the Act. On receiving notice the Petitioner appeared and showed cause and contended that on 1 -4 -1962 an unregistered sale deed was executed in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the disputed land for a consideration of Rs. l,500/ - and possession was delivered on 1 -4 -1962. Though the real transfer of the land was in the year 1962. the registered sale deed executed on 15 -1 -1966 was only the confirmation of the earlier sale. Since there was no prohibition for transfer of land in the year 1962 as the Act came into force in October, 1965, the said transfer does not come within the mischief' of the Act.

(2.) THE learned Sub -Divisional Officer after considering all the materials on record, dropped the proceeding on the finding that the transfer of the land had taken place on 1 -4 -1962 prior to the Act coming into force. The predecessor -in -interest of opp. parties 1 to 5 filed appeal which was numbered as Revenue Appeal No. 21 of 1980. The learned appellate Court by its order dated 10 -10 -1980 reversed the order of the learned trial Court and ordered for restoration of the suit land on the finding that the real transfer took place on 15 -1 -1966 by virtue of the registered sale deed and since the transfer was after the Act came into force and as no 814 prior permission had been obtained from the competent authority before such transfer, the transfer is hit by the provision of Section 22 of the Act. The Petitioner carried a revision to the Revisional Authority which was dismissed on merits. The order of appellate and revisional authorities are assailed in this writ application. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that

(3.) THE learned advocate for the State submits that since the unregistered sale deed did not transfer the title, sale deed dated 15 -1 -1966 only could convey title. The transfer being without valid permission, the judgments of the appellate authority and the revisional authority are correct and should not be interfered with.