RAMANIMANI BEHERA Vs. COLLECTOR, MAYURBHANJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the impugned order dtd. 24/6/2014(Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.05 of 2013 by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) and the impugned order dtd. 23/4/2015 (Annexure-4) passed in OLR (Revision) Case No.02 of 2014 by the Collector, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.1).

(2.) The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing the same is that, the case land originally belonged to the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, i.e., Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu Behera. The RoR of the case land was prepared in the name of the aforesaid predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5. The predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, i.e., Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu Behera as well as Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 belong to Schedule Caste community having their Sub-caste "Chamara". The petitioner belongs to general caste community having her Sub-caste "Kumbhara". The sale deeds vide RSD No.1994 dtd. 6/6/1969 and RSD No.4644 dtd. 11/11/1972 in respect of the case land was executed by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, i.e., Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu Behera in favour of the petitioner without obtaining any permission under Sec. 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 from the competent authority for selling the said case land in favour of the petitioner. As the aforesaid two sale deeds in respect of the case land were executed by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner without obtaining any permission from the competent authority for selling the same, for which, the sale deed No.1994 dtd. 6/6/1969 and the sale deed No.4644 dtd. 11/11/1972(Annexure-1 series) are void. Therefore, the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 filed a case vide OLR Case No.4 of 2012 under Sec. 23 of the OLR Act before the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3) praying for restoration of possession of the case land in their favour. After hearing from both the sides, as per the final order dtd. 28/5/2013(Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.04 of 2012, the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3) dismissed to the OLR Case No.04 of 2012 under Sec. 23 of the OLR Act, 1960 of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 assigning the reasons that, "the transferee of the case land, i.e., Opposite Partyin OLR Case No.04 of 2012 (petitioner in this writ petition) has been possessing the case land since the date of transfer and she has not been dispossessed at any point of time till date from the same. For which, she is found to be in possession over the case land belonging to the member of S.C. community for over 30 years. Therefore, her possession through invalid deeds over the case land would be adverse and when the prayer for restoration of possession of the case land has been made by the petitioners in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 (Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition) after 30 years and when, in the instant case, the Opposite Party (petitioner in this writ petition) has acquired title through prescription by remaining in possession over the case land for more than 30 years, then, the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the case land in their favour after expiry of 30 years deserves no consideration and accordingly, rejected to the OLR Case No.04 of 2012 under Sec. 23 of the OLR Act of the petitioners(Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition)."

(3.) On being dissatisfied with the above impugned order dtd. 28/5/2013(Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 by the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3), the petitioners thereof preferred an appeal vide OLR Appeal No.05 of 2013 under Sec. 58 of the OLR Act, 1960 being the appellants before the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) against the Opposite Party vide OLR Case No.04 of 2012 arraying her as respondent.