JOGENDRA PANDA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner-Jogendra Panda has sought to challenge the order dated 09.07.1990 passed by the Revenue Officer, Dharamgarh in R.M.C. No.490 under Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (In short 'the O.L.R. Act') directing issue of restoration warrant of the schedule land in favour of the legal heirs of the recorded tenant i.e. the present private opposite party Nos.3 to 5, who are admittedly belong to 'Sabara' community and have been listed as Scheduled Tribes. The present petitioner, who is a 'Brahmin' by caste sought to challenge the said order before the A.D.M.(L.R.), Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in O.L.R. Appeal No.23 of 1990 and the said appeal came to be allowed by order dated 28.11.1990, whereby, the A.D.M., Kalahandi set aside the order passed by the Revenue Officer. The predecessors in interest of the private opposite party Nos.3 to 5 challenged the order passed in appeal in the Court of the Collector, Kalahandi in O.L.R. Revision Case Nos.1/91 and 2/91 and the said revisions came to be allowed by the learned Collector, Kalahandi by order dated 26.03.1993 setting aside the order passed in appeal and reaffirming the order passed by the Revenue Officer by declaring the transaction vide R.S.D. No.1538 dated 07.05.1964 between Padman Sabar and Joginder Panda as void and with the further finding that the present writ petitioner (opposite party therein) had not perfected his title by way of adverse possession and, consequently, directed the land to be restored in favour of the successors in interest of the suit land i.e. the present private opposite party Nos.3 to 5. Therefore, being aggrieved, the present writ petitioner-Jogendra Panda has sought to challenge the order passed by the Revenue Officer under Annexure-1 and the order passed by the Revisional Authority under Annexure-4 by way of filing the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is admittedly a Non-Scheduled Caste or Tribe person and belongs to Brahmin caste and had purchased Ac2.40 decimals of land in village Jharkundamal, in Khata No.40, Plot No.380 on payment of consideration amount accompanied by delivery of possession from opposite party Nos.3 & 4, who belong to Scheduled Tribe, by way of a Registered Sale Deed No.1538 dated 07.05.1964. It is further submitted that opposite party No.3 & 4 filed R.M.C. No.11 of 1990 before opposite party No.2 (Revenue Officer, Dharamagarh) for recovery of possession of the case land under Section 23-A of the O.L.R. Act, inter alia, on the allegation that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession since the date of purchase. It is submitted that the Revenue Officer relying on an erroneous decision of the Board of Revenue 1983 56 CutLT 17, allowed the claim of the opposite party Nos.3 & 4 by his order dated 09.07.1990 under Annexure-1 which is impugned herein.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that challenge to the aforesaid order had been made by the writ petitioner in O.L.R. Appeal No.23 of 1990 before the Additional District Magistrate, Kalahandi. In the said proceeding, the appellate court came to a finding that the decision of the Board of Revenue relied upon by the Revenue Officer was no longer good law in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Anadi Mohanta & others vs. State of Orissa and Others, 1989 68 CutLT 1 and consequently, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner had come to be allowed. The opposite party Nos.3 & 4 as well as opposite party No.5 filed separate revision before opposite party No.1-Collector, Kalahandi and it is alleged by the petitioner that the revision came to be allowed on the basis of a mis-interpretation of the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court in the case of Anadi Mohanta and consequently, the revision cases were allowed with a finding that the period of limitation would be 30 years to the transfers effected without necessary permission under the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that whereas the period of limitation under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 was originally 12 years with relation to unauthorized occupation for a proceeding under 23-A, it is only on 01.05.1991 an amendment was carried out to the aforesaid provision and period of limitation stood extended to 30 years by Orissa Act 8 of 1991. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner's possession was on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour in the year 1964, was contrary to Section 7(b) of The Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950. The petitioner acquired title by way of adverse possession on 07.05.1976 i.e. on completion of 12 years from 07.05.1964. Therefore, the petitioner having perfected his title to the property by way of adverse possession, the initiation of a proceeding for recovery of the land by the private opposite parties in the year 1990 was barred by limitation.