BIKAL ROUT Vs. DHOBANI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party Nos. 3 to 5. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 does not appear in spite of repeated calls.

(2.) Order dated 04.05.1994 under Annexure-3 passed by the Collector, Jaipur-opposite party No. 5 in OLR Revision No. 2 of 1994 setting aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate (LR) passed in OLR Appeal No. 19 of 1989 and restoring the order of the Revenue Officer, Jaipur 'passed in OLR Case No. 23 of 1988 with regard to restoration of the case land in favour of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) One Daitari Behera, the husband of opposite party No. 1 and father of opposite party No. 2, sold the case land in favour of the petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 24.05.1978. After his death, the present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act for restoration of the case land, in their favour on the assertion that though their ancestor belonged to 'Keuta' caste, which is a scheduled caste as per the Presidential Order for the State of Orissa, he sold the land to the petitioner without permission of the competent authority as required under Section 22 of the OLR Act, and therefore, the sale is void and the property is liable to be restored in their favour. The writ petitioner contested the case, but the Revenue Officer held that the caste, 'Keuta' is synonymous to the caste, 'Dewar' which is a scheduled caste as per the Presidential Order for the State of Orissa, and, therefore, the sale in favour of the purchaser (writ petitioner) being without permission of the competent authority is void. Accordingly, the Revenue Officer directed for restoration of property in question in favour of present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.