LILY Vs. COLLECTOR, RAYAGADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 27.9.2004 passed by the Collector, Rayagada, opposite party no.1 in OSATIP Review Case No.16 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, opposite party no.1 allowed the application and held that permission granted by the O.S.D.(LR), Rayagada, opposite party no.2 in favour of opposite party no.3 to alienate the land in OSATIP Case No.1 of 1999 under Section 3(1) of Regulation-II of 1956 is contrary to the provisions of Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 ("Regulation 2 of 1956") and illegal, the transaction made subsequent to the permission is ab-initio void. The Tahasildar, Rayagada was also directed to take immediate action for restoration of the land of the petitioner.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case is that opposite party no.3 filed an application before the O.S.D. (LR), Rayagada, opposite party no.2 for alienation of an area of Ac.1.65 dec. appertaining to khata no.1, plot no.136 of mouza-Kotlaguda in the district of Rayagada, vide Annexure-1, which was registered as OSATIP Case No.1 of 1990. On 7.1.2000, opposite party no.2 accorded permission to opposite party no.3 to sale the land with condition that the permission would be valid for a period of 90 days and the consideration shall be paid to opposite party no.3 at the time of registration of sale deed. Pursuant to the same, opposite party no.3 alienated the land in favour of the petitioner by means of a R.S.D. No.184 of 2000 for a consideration of Rs.1,01,500/-, vide Anexure-2. The petitioner filed an application for mutation of the land. The same was allowed. Mutation R.O.R. was issued in her favour, vide Anenxure-3.

(3.) While matter stood thus, the Collector, Rayagada, opposite party no.1, initiated OSATIP Review Case No.16 of 2004 under Sub-section (3-a) (i) of the Regulation 2 of 1956. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the petitioner appeared and stated that she is a bona fide purchaser for value. In OSATIP Case No.1 of 1990, permission was accorded by the O.S.D. (LR) in favour of opposite party no.3 to sale the land. The R.O.R. has been issued in her favour. She is in possession of the land. No irregularity has been committed by her vendor in obtaining permission. Opposite party no.3 stated that he is the owner of Ac.20.00 dec. of land. After transfer, he is in possession of Ac.17.00 dec. of land. The husband of the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.95,000/- and promised to pay Rs.1,60,000/- later. The Collector held that the land was not sold at the free will of the vendor. The vendor has not received the full consideration. Held so, it allowed the petition.