SRIMATI MADANBATI LATH Vs. S D O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the transferee seeking the quashing of the orders (vide Annexures -1, 2 and 4) passed by the original, appellate and revision authorities under the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960 by way of judicial review.

(2.) 19 decimals of land appertaining to Hamid Settlement Plot Nos. 21 and 22 -under Khata No. 25 in village Ainthapalfi within the Sadar Police Station in the district of Sambaipur is the subject -matter of the dispute. Opp. party No. 4, a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, filed an application on 13 -3 -1966 before the Additional Tahsildar seeking permission to sell the property in dispute to the petitioner. That was sent to the R. 1. for enquiry and submission of report. The R. 1. raised no objection and submitted his report in September, 1966, Proclamation was issued on 7 -1 -1967 inviting objection. On 25 -7 -1967, the Additional Tahsildar submitted the file to the Sub -Divisiona! Officer recommending grant of permission. While the matter was pending before the Sub -Divisional Officer, the petitioner obtained a sale -deed in anticipation of grant of permission. Since the sale was effected not with the previous permission in writing of the S. D. O., the S D. O. was of the view that the provision contained in Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act was contravened. So, a suo motu proceeding was started. As admittedly, the transferee was not a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and previous permission was not obtained, the Revenue Officer (S. D. O., Sambalpur) declared the transfer invalid and directed restoration of possession to the transferot. A penalty of Rs. 200/ - was also imposed (vide judgment dated 20 -11 -1969 in O.L.R. Case No 70 of 1969 (Annexure -1). In appeal (O. L. R. Appeal No. 19/70). the petitioner was unsuccessful. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for review and the same was rejected vide judgment dated 15 -7 -1978 in O. L R. Review No. 14 of 1970. In O. L. R. Revision No. 16 : 1980, the petitioner raised three contentions before the revisionat authority. Firstly, the Tahsildar having recommended to the Sub -Divisionil Officer for accord of permission, the transfer was not invalid as there was inordinate delay in the matter of accord of permission. The second contention raised was that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of of hearing. The third and the substantial submission was that the land being situated within the limits of the municipality, was in ban land. Hence, the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act were non applicable. The revision authority negatived all the contentions.

(3.) WE may, however, observe that Section 73(c) can have no application to the facts of this case inasmuch as the said provision does not apply Section 73(c) of the Orsisa Land Reforms Act reads as under :