BAIKUNTHANATH NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the order of the Tahasildar and the consequential order of the Sub-Collector vide Annexures-4, 5 and 6 arising out of a proceeding under the Mutation Manual.

(2.) Factual background involved herein is; consequent upon the parties entering into a registered sale deed involving sale of land involved herein the purchaser applied for correction of record of rights by way of a proceeding under the Mutation Manual. It appears, after disposal of the proceeding vide Mutation Case No.53/2003 on 13/5/2003 directing for appropriate correction in the record of rights, the record of rights appears to have been corrected vide Annexure-2. The Petitioner claims after correction of the record of right vide Annexure-2 he was going on paying the land revenue. One such document is filed at Annexure-3. It is alleged that being aggrieved with the order in Mutation Case No.53/2003 the vendors involved in the sale deed preferred appeal vide Mutation Appeal No.11/2003 before the Sub-Collector, Rairakhol. The case of the appellant therein is that there has been wrong disclosure on the caste of the purchaser and thus a claim was made for allowing the appeal under presumption that the sale deed a void one. On this main ground the appeal was contested. It appears, considering the case of the parties, the appellate authority, however, found the case to be reconsidered by the Tahasildar. In the process, while allowing the appeal, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Tahasildar in Mutation Case No.53/2003 and remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar to take departmental action against the concerned R.I. for giving false information and also directing the Tahasildar to re-enquire the matter and dispose of the case in accordance with law. After such remand order the matter was re-examined and the original authority appears to have dismissed the mutation case for having no merit therein also with an observation therein that for the nature of allegation, there appears to be suppression of material facts by the purchaser in entering into the sale deed when the transaction was made between Tribe to Non-Tribe. It further appears, on rejection of the mutation case, an appeal was preferred and the same has been disposed of freshly with an order of dismissal thereby confirming the order of the Mutation Authority. Order of the Mutation Authority as well as the Appellate Authority challenged herein appears at Annexures-5 and 6.

(3.) In his challenge to the orders at Annexures-5 and 6, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner taking this Court to the disclosures through the sale deed further taking support of the caste certificate claimed to have been issued by the competent authority vide Annexure-7, contended that for the caste available with the Petitioner and the nature of document required to be considered in the mutation proceeding, even assuming that there is dispute raised on the caste of the Petitioner i.e. the purchaser involving a sale deed, the Mutation Authority had no authority to get into such subject. It is, therefore, while contending that there is in fact no suppression of fact, further contended that in the event such objection subsists, nothing prevented the parties in challenge to go before the competent authority to declare the sale deed void.