CHOUDHURY PADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Filing this writ application, the petitioners being the legal heirs of Late Choudhury Padhan assail the orders at Annexures-1, 2 & 3 passed by the competent authorities under the provision of the O.L.R. Act, 1960.

(2.) Short background involving the case is that a case under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 (herein after called as "the Act, 1960") was initiated at the instance of one Trayambakeswar Singh Rai seeking declaration of the sale transaction pertaining (Plot Nos.1348 and 1373 of Khata No.16/2 of the Bhogra Conversion Proceeding) Hal Plot Nos.1952 and 1981 of Hal Khata No.439 for Ac.7.56 decimals in Village-Loisingha as invalid. Case of Trayambakeswar Singh Rai was that the land described was recorded in the name of Chitrabhanu Singh Ray and the petitioner got the said land as the legal heir of Jayakrishna Singh Ray. After coming to know that the said land was purchased by Baishnab Charan Padhan and another, he filed Section 23 application on the premises that the sale becomes invalid as the same has been effected without prior approval of the Revenue Officer. Pursuant to issuance of show cause notice, Baishnab Charan Padhan and another appeared. They jointly filed written objection objecting the maintainability of the case on the ground that the Section 23 proceeding is not maintainable as Trayambakeswar Singh Rai, the petitioner therein was not a member of Scheduled Tribes. They further asserted in their written objection that the petitioner and O.P.9 herein were tenants under Late Chitrabhanu Singh Rai and they were possessing the disputed land initially as tenants and purchased the same by executing registered sale deed with consideration amount. The original petitioner and O.P.9 also claimed their right over the property by virtue of acquiring title by adverse possession, further insisted the questions of maintainability to be decided ahead of merit involving the case. Preliminary objection raised by the present petitioner and O.P.9 was considered and it was decided that the question of maintainability shall be dealt with while disposing the main case.

(3.) The original petitioner and O.P.9 examined two witnesses besides have also filed documents. From the side of the petitioner, Jaya Krishna Singh Rai, two witnesses have been examined. Similarly some documents have also been exhibited from their side. The original authority framed the following issues :-