NARSING SATNAMI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri B. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State. In spite of appearance of a set of Counsel on behalf of opposite party No. 2, nobody is present at the time of hearing.

(2.) This writ petition is filed challenging the orders at Annexures-4 and 5 passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority involving the proceeding under Sec. 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.

(3.) Short background involving the case is that the petitioner being the owner of the land sought for permission for sale of land mentioned herein from the competent authority under Sec. 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (for short 'the OLR Act') for sale of the land specified herein and vide Annexure-1 the Sub-Divisional Officer while allowing the application granted permission to the petitioner to sell the land involved therein in favour of Ashok Kumar Bose at a cost not less than Rs. 17,000.00 by his order dated 19.05.1982. Vide Annexure-2 a certificate of permission was also issued, but however the certificate did not disclose the name of the buyer. After three years the petitioner sold Ac.8.00 and odd and for the balance land the petitioner entered into with a mortgage deed with opposite party No. 2 with a condition for return of the land after ten years. It is submitted that after the expiry of period after taking possession of the land from opposite party No. 2 back, the petitioner filed application under Sec. 23 of the OLR Act for declaring the mortgage deed which was in the form of sale deed on the premises of invalid document for the sale not been taking place within the time stipulation. The proceeding under Sec. 23 of the OLR Act was allowed vide Annexure- The opposite party No. 2 being aggrieved by the original order involving proceeding under Sec. 23 of the OLR Act, preferred appeal and the appeal was allowed reversing the order of the revisional authority in favour of opposite party No. 2. A revision being filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide Annexure-5 giving rise to the present writ petition.