BINAPANI SETHI Vs. BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners call in question legality of orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act'). The authorities were of the view that there was contravention of provisions contained in Sections 34 and 35 of the Act and the two sale -deeds executed in favour of the petitioners by opposite parties 4 to 8 were void.

(2.) THE background facts essentially are as follows : Each of the petitioners purchased land by sale -deed dated 28.9.1993 from opposite parties 4 to 8. Opposite party No. 1 filed an application before the Collector, Cuttack, which was registered as Consolidation Misc. Case No. 1 of 1994, alleging that the areas transferred by 'he sale -deeds were , less than one acre each, thereby attracting rigors of Section 34. The matter was carried before this Court and direction was given to the Collector of finalise the proceeding by 15.10.1995. As no petition was filed before the Tahasildar as directed by the Collector by his order dated 29.7.1995, the matter was finally disposed of by the Collector by order dated 10.10.1995. A direction was given to the Tahasildar to consider, whether permission can be granted by the Tahasildar keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were husband and wife and they may not fragment the Chakas, and cultivate the land jointly. The Collector held that the sale -deeds were executed in contravention of the provisions contained in Sub -section (3) of Section 34 of (he Act, and Rule 32 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Rules, 1973 (in short, 'the Rules') as prior permission had not been obtained. The sale -deeds were accordingly declared to be void. Final order of the Collector dated 10.10.1995 (Annexure -6) is the subject -matter of challenge.

(3.) MR . M. R. Panda appearing for opposite, party No. 1 submitted that in case any person intends to sell a parcel of land which would create a fragment, the owners of contiguous Chakas are given option to purchase. In that view of the matter, he had locus standi.