KORADA VIJAYA Vs. SUB COLLECTOR, RAYAGADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioners pray for quashment of a proceeding initiated by the Sub -Collector, Rayagada (O.P. No. 1) in OSATIP Case No. 1150/2005 under Section 3B of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (for short, the Regulation 2 of 1956). The case of the petitioners is that the original Khatadars of the case land being members of a Scheduled Tribe had sold the case land under Registered Sale Deeds after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority as required under the provisions of the Regulation 2 of 1956. After Regulation 2 of 1956 underwent an amendment by introduction of Orissa Regulation 1 of 2000, the predecessor of the petitioners, who had purchased the case land from the original Khatadars filed returns in prescribed form on 3.9.2004. Thereafter, a notice in the name of the deceased vendee in a proceeding under Section 3 -B(1) of Regulation 2 of 1956, which was registered as OSATIP Case No. 1150/2005, was received by the petitioners. A copy of the notice is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure -3 and the copy of the returns filed by the vendee in Form -2 is annexed as Annexure -4. The petitioners, who are the successors -in -interest of the deceased vendee, appeared before the authority who had issued the notice (O.P. No. 1) and appraised the fact that the deceased vendee had already filed returns in Form -2. Yet O.P. No. 1, instead of dropping the proceeding, has directed that the proceedings would continue and there is no question of dropping the same. According to the petitioners, since the vendors, after obtaining due permission, have sold the case land, O.P. No. 1, without appreciating the said fact, has illegally initiated the proceeding without verifying the records relating to the permission which are very well available with him. It is argued that O.P. No. 1 has mechanically initiated the proceeding without ascertaining or verifying from the records relating to the transaction in respect of the case land as well as the returns filed by the vendee vide Annexure -2. Therefore, it is contended, the impugned notice under Annexure -3 calling upon the vendee to appear and show cause is nothing but mere abuse of process of law intended to harass the petitioners. Hence, the prayer to quash the proceeding.

(2.) O .Ps. 2 to 5 are the successors -in -interest of the vendors, who have died in the meanwhile. They have filed a counter affidavit supporting the stand advanced by the petitioners. They have stated in their counter affidavit that the case land was sold after obtaining permission from the competent authority and there is no element of fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of the sale deeds in question.

(3.) FOR the purpose of ready reference, Section 3 -B of Regulation 2 of 1956 is reproduced hereunder: