LAL MOHAN SOY Vs. BANSHI MAHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellate order of the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, in Regulation-2, Appeal Case No. 15 of 1975, annexed as Annexure-1, has been assailed in this writ application. By the said order, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and held the transfer to be a valid one.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he is the sole legal heir of the recorded owner of the property, Bisha Ho belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribes. The predecessor-in-interest of opposite parties 1 to 6 got a fraudulent deed of transfer purported to be one executed by said Bisha Ho without any prior permission of the competent authority and took possession of the land in question. The petitioner was serving in Army and he sent an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer invoking his jurisdiction under Regulation 2 of 1956 alleging therein that the transfer in question is in contravention of the provisions of the said Regulation and, therefore, possession of the land should be given to him. On the basis of the said application filed by the petitioner in the year 1972, a proceeding under the Regulation was initiated. The Sub-Divisional Officer in the said proceeding came to the conclusion that there was no permission of the competent authority to sell the land by the Scheduled Tribe transferor in favour of the non-Scheduled Tribe transferee. It was further held that Bisha Ho was dead since 1-5-1940 and, therefore, the alleged transfer dated 5-8-1963 was the outcome of forgery and consequently the transfer was invalid. With these findings, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the transferee to give possession of the land to the present petitioner. This order of the Sub-Divisional Officer though has not been filed, but the same has been quoted in extenso in the writ application itself. Being aggrieved by the said order, the father of present opposite parties 1 to 6, Barju Mahanta, filed an appeal. Before the appellate authority, the appellant produced the document of permission permitting the transfer of the land in question. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that there was a permission for transfer of the land by a Scheduled Tribe person in favour of a non-Scheduled Tribe person and, therefore, the same could not be said to be hit by the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1956. On the question of fraud alleged to have been committed by the transferee and the finding that Bisha Ho was dead since 1949, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that those matters would not be within the jurisdiction of the authority under Regulation 2 of 1956 and would be a matter for the Civil Court to decide the same. On those findings, by the impugned order, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. Jena appearing for the petitioner raises two contentions in assailing the order of the Additional District Magistrate :-