LAWS(ORI)-2007-1-28

KSHETRAMOHAN DWARY Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL

Decided On January 10, 2007
Kshetramohan Dwary Appellant
V/S
Sub Divisional Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders passed by the O.L.R. authorities, vide Annexures -2 and 3 to this Writ application, in a proceeding under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act declaring a sale deed executed in favour of one Kshetramohan Dwari, the original Writ Petitioner, who having expired during pendency of this Writ application has been substituted by the present Petitioners, are assailed before this Court.

(2.) THE scenario of the case is that aforesaid Kshetramohan Dwari and his son Harilal Dwari had purchased the disputed land from one Jyotish Chandra Patra, the present Opposite Party No. 4, by a registered sale deed. In the year 1986 said Jyotish Chandra Patra filed a petition before the Revenue Officer under Section 23 of the OLR Act inter alia stating that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community being a 'PANO' by caste and therefore the sale deed executed by him as aforesaid without due permission as mandatorily required under law was ab initio void and accordingly he prayed restoration of the land to his possession. The said petition of Jyotish Chandra Patra was registered as OLR Case No. 42 of 1986 in the Court of the Revenue Officer, Baripada. Kshetramohan, the predecessor -in -interest of the present Petitioners, took the plea before the Revenue Officer that Jyotish Chandra Patra was not a person of any Scheduled Caste community and as such the sale deed was legal and a valid one.

(3.) ACCORDING to Learned Counsel for the present Petitioners, the noting of caste in an ROR is only prima facie and does not conclusively prove the caste of a person. He further submitted that no caste certificate was produced before the Revenue Officer, but then such a certificate was produced before the Appellate authority and no opportunity was given to the predecessor -in -interest of the Petitioners to refute such fact. Accordingly it is submitted that the Appellate authority illegally allowed the Appeal and the order of the Appellate authority has also been illegally upheld by the Revisional authority.