UPENDRA NAIK Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR, PANCHPIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 20.8.2000 passed under Section 23 of Orissa Land Reforms Act by the Sub-Collector, Panchpir in O.L.R. Case No. 2/99 as also the appellate and revisional orders confirming the said order of the Sub-Collector are impugned in these writ petitions. Admittedly the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe community, whereas opposite party No. 5 is a Scheduled Caste person. The disputed land which was homestead in nature belonged to opposite party No. 5. In the year 1974 it is alleged that said opposite party No. 5 sold the said land to the father of the petitioners, Late Krushna Naik for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- by a registered sale deed. It is alleged that after purchasing the land, the father of the petitioners was and after him the petitioners are residing in a house said to have been constructed over the land. According to Mr. Nanda, on being instigated by the enemies of the petitioners, in the year 1999, opposite party No. 5 filed an application under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act, 1965 before the Sub-Collector, Panchpir. The said application was registered as O.L.R. Case No. 2/99. It was averred by opposite party No. 5 that as he belonged to S.T. category and the sale deed executed in favour of Krushna Naik was without obtaining prior permission from the concerned authorities, the entire transaction was ab initio void and the petitioners had not acquired any title by virtue of such void/illegal sale deed. Opposite party No. 5 prayed to evict the petitioners from the disputed land and to hand over possession to him. Notice of the O.L.R. Case was issued to the opposite parties. It appears that the father of opposite party No. 5 appeared in Court on 9.9.1999, but then no counter or show cause reply was filed by him. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to several dates but no orders were passed. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that without any notice to the petitioners, the case was transferred and was taken up in Lok Adalat held on 20.8.2000 at Karanjia and was disposed of with a direction to evict Krushna Naik from the land and to hand over the possession to opposite party No. 5.

(2.) Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on coming to know about the ex parte order passed in Lok Adalat, the father of the petitioners filed two petitions before the concerned authorities one for setting aside the ex parte order and the other, challenging the order on merits. Both the petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, Krushna Naik preferred O.L.R. Appeal Case No. 7/2000 under Section 58(1), O.L.R. Act before the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj. The Appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj on the ground that admittedly the sale deed had been executed without obtaining prior permission as mandatorily required under Section 23 of O.L.R. Act. The order passed in O.L.R. Appeal Case No. 7 of 2000 was challenged by the father of the petitioners before the Collector and District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj in O.L.R. Revision Case No. 4/2001. The Collector also declined to interfere with the orders passed in the Lok Adalat. While matter stood thus Krushna expired, the petitioners have approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2510/2002 challenging the impugned orders. It appears, the petitioners also approached the Land Reforms Commissioner by filing a Revision against the self same order, which was registered as Revision Petition No. 21/2002. The Revisional Court declined to interfere with the ex parte order passed in the Lok Adalat. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed W.P. (C) No. 839/2004. As both the cases involve same questions of facts and law, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) According to Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners the Sub-Collector had not given any opportunity to the father of the petitioners to put forth his case. Before Krushna Naik could file the show cause reply, the matter was transferred to the Lok Adalat without any notice to him. Thus, I find some force in the submissions. It would be crystal clear on perusal of the order sheet of O.L.R. Case No. 2/99 that the authorities proceeded unilaterally without affording any opportunity to the opposite party of the said case. The case was transferred to Lok Adalat without any notice. In the Lok Adalat the case was disposed of behind the back of the contesting opposite party. Mr. Nanda further submits that if opportunity would have been given to the petitioners they could have satisfied the Authority that the land being homestead, the provisions of the O.L.R. Act could not be attracted. Mr. Nanda further submits that the land, where the house of the petitioners exists is situated in the N.A.C. area which is an urban area and as such the provisions of O.L.R. Act are not applicable. It is also submitted that even otherwise the land is neither agricultural land nor the same is fit for agriculture. On that ground also the provisions of O.L.R. Act cannot be attracted. Mr. Nanda also submitted that the ex parte order passed in the Lok Adalat, which was confirmed by the higher authorities was palpably wrong and that causes immense hardship and prejudice to the petitioners, who have purchased the disputed land by a registered sale deed and are staying in a house constructed on the said land along with their family members.