MATHEW AYMANITHAL Vs. COLLECTOR PHULBANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a writ of certiorari directed against the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Khondamals (Opposite party No. 2) passed under Section 60 of the Khondmals Laws Regulation 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation', as also the order of the Collector, Phulbani (Opposite party No. 1), in appeal against the former order.

(2.) One Sidheswar Mallik a member of the Scheduled Tribes was a joint owner of certain lands along with four co-sharers and obtained transfer of the interest of the co-sharers in his favour. Sidheswar applied for permission to the opposite party No. 2 for alienation of the property now in dispute in favour of the petitioner and permission was accorded in May 1968, vide Annexure-2. The petitioner claims that the sale took place thereafter and he was put into possession. Opposite parties 3 to 4 were set up by some enemies of the petitioner and applied to the Sub-divisional Officer (opposite party No. 2) under Section 60 of the Regulation on the allegation that the lands in dispute were in their possession as tenants and their possession could not be affected by the alienation made by the co-sharers in favour of Sidheswar. The subsequent alineation by Sidheswar in favour of the petitioner was, therefore, bad. The Sub-divisional Officer got the application inquired into by the Tahsildar, Khondmals. In the inquiry, Sidheswar produced a copy of the unregistered sale deed dated 6-3-1968 under which he purchased 26.36 acres of land from his four co-sharers for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/-. Thereafter he obtained the requisite permission for transfer under Section 60 of the Regulation. Permission was granted in R. L. T. Case No. 19 of 1968 on 16-5-1968 and the sale deed was executed by Sidheswar in favour of the petitioner. Upon measurement, the area alienated was found to be 21.61 acres only. By order dated 28th of August, 1969, the Sub-divisional Officer, in exercise of powers under Section 60 (3) of the Regulation, directed that possession of the disputed property be made over to the opposite parties. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector (opposite party No. 1). That however, was dismissed on 25-7-1970 as barred by limitation. This writ application has thereafter been filed.

(3.) Mr. Asok Das for the petitioner contends