SRIKAR BAG Vs. REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of a proceeding Under Section 23 -A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) JANMEJAYA Majhi (opp. party No. 4) claiming himself to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe filed an application before the Revenue Officer, Titilagarh Under Section 23 -A of the Act for restoration -of possession of Ac. 0, 93 decimals of land in plot Nos. 345 and 348 of village Binakala, P. S. Titilagarh on the allegation that the petitioner belonging to a non -Scheduled Tribe purchased that land from him by a registered sale deed dated 10 -1 -1965 without obtaining prior permission in writing of the competent authority. The petitioners did not dispute that he belonged to a non -Scheduled Tribe and that opposite party No. 4 was a member of the Scheduled tribe. However, he pleaded that by executing the registered sale deed dated 10 -1 -1965 the opp. party No. 4 merely ratified his former sale on 1 -4 -1956 when possession of the land was delivered to him and over since 1955 he being in possession of the land coutinuously asserting title in himself, he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession and therefore, the application for restoration of possession and therefore, the application for restoration of possession was barred by limitation. The Revenue Officer, by order dated 18 -9 -1986 annexed to the writ application as Annexure -1, came to hold that there was lack of evidence showing transfer of the land in 1955 but he believed the possession of the petitioner from 10 -1 -1965 when the registered sale deed was executed by opp. party No. 4. Although the transfer had been made without any prior permission in writing of the competent authority, he refused to restore possession of the land to the opp, party No. 4 because, acccording to him, the petitioner had perfected his title by way of the adverse possession by remaining in possession of the land for more than twelve years.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by such order of the Addl. District Magistrate (LR), the petitioner approached the District Collector, Bolanqir in OLR. Revision No. 12 of 1987 who, by order dated 22 -7 -1989 annexed to the writ application as Annexure -3, came to hold that in terms of Sec 23 B a vendee cannot claim acquisition of title by adverse possession unless he was remained in possession of the property for thirty years or more and since the petitioner had not remained in possession of the Land for such, period, he concurred with the finding of the Add, D.str,ct Magnate (LR) holding the petition to be not barred by time and accordingly he dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by T order of the revisional authority, the petitioner has filed this writ apphcation asking for a writ of certiorari quashing Annexures 2 and 3