TIRUPATI PANIGRAHI Vs. COLLECTOR, GAJAPATI, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in O.L.R. Revision Case No.63/94 decided along with several other Revisions in exercise of power under Section 59(2) of the OLR Act, 1965 thereby allowing the reference made by the Collector holding the permission to sale the land in favour of the petitioner therein as bad and further directing the Collector to take steps for restoring the possession of the lands in favour of the tribal owners.

(2.) In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sale to a person outside Tribe by the petitioner was based on a permission granted by the Competent Authority in exercise of power under Section 22 of the OLR Act to a Scheduled Tribe. In the initial stage the authority in exercising power under Section 22 of the OLR Act, after a thorough inquiry and examining different aspect in the matter of requirement under Section 22 of the Act though granted permission for sale but the permission was on reduction of the extent of land applied. The authority granted permission to sell only Ac.7.030 out of Ac.12 of land as a whole. For the reasons assigned in the grant order, it appears, there is full compliance of Section 22 of the OLR Act. Learned counsel Sri Rao submitted that under the circumstances, there was no scope for the Collector for referring the matter to the Board of Revenue for exercising its power under Section 59(2) of the Act. This writ petition involves the OLR Case No.15 of 1993 concerning the sale of the land by the particular petitioner. In the above premises, learned counsel submitted that in view of the report of the R.I. submitted for recommending permission for sale in favour of the tribe person, there was no scope for reference of the matter and further since the Board of Revenue observed that the authority in exercising its power under Section 22 of the OLR Act complied all the formalities except indicating the reason for reducing the area in his report and therefore, the Board of Revenue arrived at a wrong and illegal impugned order in illegal appreciation of whole aspect and the impugned order is liable to be interfered and set-aside

(3.) Learned State Counsel on the other hand, supporting the order of the Board of Revenue passed in OLR Revision Case No.63/94 contended that the authority in exercising its power apart from compliance of the requirement of Section 22 of the Act, is also required to follow the instructions given by the State Government in a memo issued for the purpose and the notification of the State having not been followed, the permission for sale was bad and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, there is no scope for interfering in the impugned order.