RANKA BHUA Vs. JUBARAJ SARAF FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1, either individually or along with the other two petitioners, purchased certain lands of village Suktapali from different persons between the years 1967 and 1978. During the consolidation proceedings in respect of that area, the petitioners applied under Section 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter, "the Act") for recording their names in the relevant records on the strength of the said purchases. These applications were registered as Objection Case Nos. 772/102, 1056/887 and 1050/390. The Consolidation Officer disallowed the claims of the petitioners on the ground that the sales in their favour were void in view of Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the O. L. R. Act") and disposed of those Objection Cases accordingly. The petitioners, instead of filing appeals against those orders, filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. Those applications were registered as Objection Case Nos. 320/150, 724/ 54, 877 / 208, 926 /257 and 1001/332. The Consolidation Officer dismissed those objection cases also on the ground that the sales were void and also on the ground that the earlier applications under Section 9(3) of the Act were rejected. All these orders, Annexures 1 to 7, are challenged in this petition.

(2.) When this petition was placed earlier before the Division Bench for hearing, it was, inter alia, contended that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to decide that the transactions of sale were void as they contravened the provisions of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act and therefore, the orders passed by him should be regarded as illegal and bad. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Labanga Debeta v. State of Orissa, (O. J. C. No. 2566 of 1984 decided on 10-8-1990). The Division Bench doubted the correctness of the decision given in that case and it was of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. For that reason, this petition is now placed before this larger Bench for deciding whether the view taken in Labanga Debata's case that a transaction in contravention of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act does not become ipso facto void until a proceeding is initiated under Section 23 and validity of the transaction is determined by the designated Revenue Officer is correct or not.

(3.) We will therefore, examine what led this court to take that view in the case of Labanga Debata. The reasons given by the Court for taking that view are as under: -