BHASKAR NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition involving non-registration of sale deed by the Sub-Registrar, Hindol, opposite party no.4 and involves the following prayer :-

(2.) Short fact involving the case is 12 persons inclusive of persons belonging to General Caste and Scheduled Caste were applicants for allotment of a parcel of land before the Ex-Ruller of Ex-State, Hindol prior to coming into force of the Constitution of India, 1950. In due process of law all these twelve persons were jointly granted permanent lease in respect of an area of Ac.98.42 in Nayabadi Khata No.470 of 1946 -47 out of Sabik Plot No.1286/1366 measuring Ac.1595.87 situated in village Khaliborei, P.S. Rasol. Jamabandi was also issued favouring these 12 persons. All these twelve persons were in occupation of the said land and in the meantime all of them were declared as Stitiban tenants involving the whole land allotted in their favour. During settlement operation 1969 Record of right was also prepared in respect of Ac.98.180 decimals appertaining to Plot No.1921 having an area of Ac.36.130, Plot No.2/2938 area Ac.26.390, Plot No.1388 area Ac.7.350 and Plot No.1924/2954, area Ac.28.010 under Khata No.119 of Mouza-Khalilborei, jointly in the name of original lessee and the legal heirs of the deceased lessee also died in the meantime. Involving Mutation Case No.1705 of 2018 the lease hold land stood recorded in the names of original recorded tenants and involving legal heirs of deceased the recorded tenants. While the matter stood thus for the legal necessity legal heirs of lessee Jayakrushna Mishra one of 12 equal share holders intended to sale their share of Ac.8.18 out of total area and one Asish Swayam Prakash agreed to purchase the share of Jayakrushna Mishra through their legal heirs i.e. petitioners. Accordingly petitioners prepared the sale deed and placed the same before the Sub-Registrar, Hindol for registration but however Registrar, Hindol blocked the registration on the premises that for involvement of Scheduled Castes people in the Record of Rights, he will register the instrument only after getting clarification from Addl. District Magistrate- cum-District Registrar. On seeking instruction the Additional District Magistrate on the application of provision at Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 vide Annexure-5 the doubt in the mind of the Sub-Registrar, the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Dhenkanal again sought for clarification from opposite party no.2 on the application of provisional of Section 22 of the OLR Act 1960 before registering the deed. In response to which the opposite party no.2 wrote back to the Registrar that there is application of Section 22 of the OLR Act to the case at hand. Consequent upon receipt of communication vide Annexure-7 the Sub-Registrar involved declined to register the instrument in absence of compliance of provision of Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960. Subsequent to communication vide Annexure-6 the giving rise to filing of writ petition at hand.

(3.) Assailing this action of the Sub-Registrar involved Sri S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for having equal share over the disputed property further for involvement of sale of share of a person belonging to general caste even though the Record of Rights stands in the name of persons including some Scheduled Castes, there is no prohibition in sale of his own share by the petitioner. For no involvement of Scheduled Caste persons share there is no question of application of provisions of Section 22 of the OLR Act 1960. Sri Dash thus contended that the Sub- Registrar as well as the I.G.R. all failed in understanding the distinction between sale of share and sale of land. Sri Dash also taken support of a decision of this Court in the case of Sitarani Rath -vrs.- The Inspector General of Registration, Odisha and others , 2015 2 ILR(Cut) 344, and sought for intervention of this Court in the impugned action of the Sub-Registrar and also declaring the correspondence vide Annexures-6 and 7 have no application to the case at hand.