HIMANSU KUMAR BEHERA Vs. COLLECTOR, JAGATSINGHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order vide Annexure-2 and thereby seeking a direction to declare the sale deed vide Annexure1(series) not to be void.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the dispute involved herein arises out of a proceeding initiated under the provisions of Section 35 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 hereinafter in short be called as the Act, 1972 by the contiguous land owner challenging two of the sell deeds involved therein at the instance of the opposite party no.1 therein in favour of the opposite party nos.2 & 3 therein. The dispute was registered Consolidation Misc. Case No.3/03. The allegation involving the Consolidation Misc. Case No.3/03 is that for the sell involved therein in contravention with the provision at Section 2 (m)(i) of the Act, 1972 a declaration was sought for through the Collector to declare the sale deeds as void. The contesting opposite parties therein in the proceeding contended that there involves two sells. First sell was made in the year 1997 comprising the area measuring Ac.1.02 decimals and the second sale was made in the year 2001 comprising of area measuring Ac.0.84decimals of land involving common parties. On the premises that the whole land comprised remaining more than one acre and therefore, the sale transactions were valid, a request was made to the Collector undertaking the proceeding U/s.35 of the Act for dismissal of the proceeding initiated by the contiguous land owner.

(3.) Challenging the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. the purchasers advancing his argument that the whole land of the vendor appearing to be Ac.1.86 decimals and at the first sale of the land involved in the year 1997 for an area of Ac.1.02dec. did not attract the provision of Section 2(m)(i) of the Act, 1972 and it is in the premises same has the protection of the provision at Section 2(m)(i) of the Act, 1972, Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector in exercise of power under the Act, 1972 failed to appreciate the intention of the legislature under the provision at Section 2(m)(i) of the Act, 1972 and ultimately failed in exercise its power U/s.35 of the Act, 1972.