The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Dec-2023 16:30:52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19520 of 2014 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Keshab Chandra Das @ Dash …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. G.N. Sahu, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.P. Panda, A.G.A. For O.P. Nos.1 to 4 Mr. S.P. Mohanty, Advocate For O.P. Nos.6 to 12 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 13th December, 2023 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Mr. S.P. Mohanty, learned counsel submits fresh power for substituted Opposite Parties No.7 and 12. The same is kept on record. 2. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate for State- Opposite Party No.1 to 4 and Mr. S.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for W.P.(C) No.19520 of 2014 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Dec-2023 16:30:52 the Opposite Party No.6 to 12. Opposite Party No.5 does not appear despite sufficiency of service of notice. 3. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14.8.2003 of the Collector, Rayagada passed in OSATIP Review Case No.214 of 2001. 4. The Collector, Rayagada in exercise of suo-motu power under sub-Section (3-a)(i) of Section 3 of Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956 has reviewed the permission dated 13.12.2000 granted in favour of Opposite Party No.5 to sell the lands. Opposite Party No.5 has sold the land to present Petitioner after getting permission. 5. The Collector, Rayagada upon review has cancelled the permission dated 13.12.2000 and also directed for cancellation of execution of sale deeds bearing No.76 of 2001 and 77 of 2001 and further, to correct the ROR too. The Collector has cancelled the sale transaction by holding that the original khatadars, i.e. Opposite Party No.6 to 12, have been deceived to sell their land, wherein the Petitioner obtained the land through Opposite Party No.5 in a benami transaction. W.P.(C) No.19520 of 2014 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Dec-2023 16:30:52 6. The background facts of the case are that, Opposite Parties No.6 to 12 were the original tenants in respect of the land measuring area Ac.1.51 decimals of mouza-Serikona of village Kotalguda in Plot No.60, 59 and 118 under Khata No.311/75 (hereinafter referred as the case land). They sold the same to Opposite Party No.5 on 16.6.1997 in execution of different registered sale deeds. Opposite Party No.5 as well as Opposite Party No.6 to 12 are the members of scheduled tribe community. Then Opposite Party No.5 sold the case land to the Petitioner in 2001 as stated above with permission granted in his favour. The Petitioner is not a member of scheduled tribe community. 7. Mr. G.N. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits, while challenging the impugned order, that, such findings of the Collector are all baseless without support of adequate materials. As such, he prays to set aside the same. 8. Mr. S.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.6 to 12, submits in his reply that they have sold the case land to meet their legal necessity and they do not have any objection for such sell in favour of the Petitioner by Opposite Party No.5. It is W.P.(C) No.19520 of 2014 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Dec-2023 16:30:52 also submitted by him that they have received the sale consideration amount in the transaction from Opposite Party No.5. 9. It is seen that Opposite Party No.5, a member of schedule tribe community, is serving as an employee under the GRIDCO and he has having 10 acres of land in his favour besides the case land. Admittedly Opposite Party No.5 has applied for permission resulting grant of same in his favour on 13.12.2000. It is further seen that Opposite Party No.6 to 12, the original khatadars, are related to each other and having sufficient lands in their favour after sale of the case land to O.P. No.5. They sold the case land to Opposite Party No.5 to meet the marriage expenses of the daughter of Bidika Tandi. Besides the marriage expenses of the daughter, they were also in need of money for their day to day expenses and purchase of bullock. One of the said Opposite Parties has also having three acres more land besides the land sold out and similarly other Opposite Parties are having more land in their favour after sell of the case land. 10. This Court in Gurubari Lenka -vs- Dulani Thakurani – AIR 1971 Ori 147, and Lily vs- Collector, Rayagada and others – 2019 (Supp.II) OLR—644, have held that, when the terms of sale deed is W.P.(C) No.19520 of 2014 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Dec-2023 16:30:52 clear and unambiguous, no external aid is necessary to find out the intention of the vendor and the narration of document would be the sole determining feature. 11. In the instant case, the sale deeds executed by Opposite Party No.6 to 12 in favour of Opposite Party No.5 is clear to the extent that the land is sold to meet such legal expenses and admittedly Opposite Party No.6 to 12 have not objected anything regarding inadequate sale consideration, if any. They have also not objected regarding receipt of sale consideration amount from Opposite Party No.5. It is further seen that Opposite Party No.5 had purchased the land in 1997 and sold it to the Petitioner in 2001, after getting permission on 13.12.2000. Such circumstances of transaction between Opposite Party No.5 and Opposite Party No.6 to 12 and again with the Petitioner after four years, does not smell anything about benami transaction and such finding of the Collector, Rayagada that the Petitioner managed to obtain the land through Opposite Party No.5 in a benami transaction is seen without any material. When the original vendor does not object sell of the land in favour of Opposite Party No.5 and the financial status of Opposite Party No.5 is so affluent to independently purchase the land, the finding of the Collector to say the same as benami W.P.(C) No.19520 of 2014 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Dec-2023 16:30:52 transaction is seen unjustified and erroneous. Again, when it is seen that the original vendor, Viz. Opposite Party No.6 to 12, and Opposite Party No.5 are all having sufficient lands in their favour after sale of case land to the Petitioner, nothing remains to doubt the transaction to warrant suo-motu power of the Collector for cancelling such transaction. In addition to this, it is needless to say that when the terms and conditions of the sale deed are clear and unambiguous, it cannot be opined so based on some external irrelevant grounds to opine the sale transaction as benami or unsatisfactory. As such, the Collector has exceeded its jurisdiction and acted beyond his jurisdiction to cancel the permission dated 13.12.2000 (granted in Permission Case No.54 of 2000) and the sale deeds. 12.
Decision
In the result, the impugned order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the Collector, Rayagada in OSATIP Review Case No.214/2001 under Annexure-4 is set aside. 13. The writ petition is disposed of as allowed. (B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/Secretary W.P.(C) No.19520 of 2014 Page 6 of 6