(1.) Petitioner Calls in question legality of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh, declaring that the petitioner has not successfully proved his claim over plot Nos. 537/1 and 538/1 measuring 2 acres and was in unauthorised occupation vide his order dated 17 -11 -1982 in Revenue Appeal No. 30 of 1980 (Annexure -4 to the writ application). The further direction was for restoration of the aforesaid plots to Lalindra Gand (opposite party No. 1). Penalty was imposed on the ground that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant of the land.
(2.) THE background facts are as follows : Two plots of land measuring 2 acres bearing plot Nos. 537/1 and 538/1 Khata No. 71 at village Japanga was Kalo Jagir land. 'Kalo' is the local term for village police. By Orissa Offices ot Village Police (Abolition) Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') all offices of village police in the State of Orissa were abolished. Under Section 3(1) (a) of the Act all Jagir lands stood resumed and vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Bhimokalo and Gokula Kalo filed an application for settlement of the disputed lands in their favour. The case was registered as Misc. Case No. 351 of 1965 -66. After considering the claims of the applicants and the writ petitioner, the land was settled in the name of the writ petitioner. A petition was filed by the mother of opp. party. 1 Under Section 3 of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956) (described in short as 'Kegulation') for restoration of the land in respect of the two plots. By order dated 10 -9 -1971, the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Sundargarh (in short, 'SDO') declared that the settlement was null and void, directed restoration and imposed a fine. On being moved by the petitioner, by order dated 23 -9; 1871, he held that the Regulation did not apply to the disputed two plots in view of the settlement mode under the Act.Appeal was preferred by Asmati Gond (mother of opp. party No. 1). Appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the SDO, Sadar, Sundargarh, by order dated 14 -8 -1973, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh. Asmati died on 29 -6 -1974, and Lalindra, opp. party No. 1 was substituted in her place in the proceeding on 12 -9 -1974. The SDO by order dated 15 -3 -1980 in Misc. Case No. 214 of 1970 held that the petitioner was not an unauthorised occupant for the said two plots. The SDO held that the case was not maintainable for the two disputed plots. . For the three undisputed plots he again directed restoration of possession and levied a fine of Rs. 250/ -. We are not very much concerned with the undisputed plots. Lalindra (opp. party No. 1 ) filed Revenue Appeal No. 31 of 1980 against that part of the order which related to the disputed plots. The same was allowed by the impugned order dated 17 -11 -1982 (Annexure -4).
(3.) THE basic question is whether the order of settlement in favour of Hiradhar made under the Act could be nullified in a proceeding under the Regulation, The stand of the petitioner is that the authority who passed the order had jurisdiction to do it and if there was any infirmity in the order, the same could have been challenged by the concerned opposite party in an appropriate forum. That having not been done, it was not open to the authorities under the Regulation to decide correctness of the order passed. That clearly amounts to review of an order passed under another statute, while dealing with a case under an entirely different statute. The stand of opp. party No. 1 on the other hand is that order of settlement in favour of Hiradhar is void because the authority who passed the order could not have on the facts passed the order and there being inherent lack of jurisdiction, the order was void. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in K. Sitaram Dora and Anr. v. V. Krishna Rao Dora and Ors.,(36 (1970) CLT 636'. With reference to the facts involved in the said case, it was submitted that the Court intended to say that if the records did not establish the claim of a person as an intermedia'ry, the Collector would have no jurisdiction to deal with his claim Under Sections 6 and 7 and therefore there was lack of jurisdiction. It is submitted that so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the question of establishing the claim of Hiradhar was not involved in the application filed by Bhima Kalo and Gokula Kalo. His status is that of a purchaser and not of a Kalo or his co -sharer or his tenant. As sucii he was not entitled to settlement Under Section 4 of the Act. The order was therefore, without jurisdiction and accordingly, was a nullity. If the order is a nullity the competent authority under the Regulation who is competent to entertain and decide a claim .Under Section 3 of the Regulation, is competent to ignore the order of the Revenue Officer. By way of reply it is submitted by the petitioner that even if it is conceded that the settlement in favour of the petitioner was bad, yet no relief can be granted to opposite party No. 1, as the land vested with the State in terms of Section 3(1)(e). There was no settlement in favour of opp party No. 1 in terms,of Section 4(4), and therefore, opp. party. No. 1 has no focus stand/' to question the settlement.