Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Bhismadev Sahu @ Vismadev Sahu & Another … Petitioners. -VERSUS- State of Orissa & Others … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr.P.K. Nayak, Adv. (For the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Tej Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel (For the Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2). P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 11.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.09.2025 WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in R.C. No.124 of 2006 by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.2). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the case land originally belonged to one Anantaram Sahu (father of the petitioners). The father of the petitioners i.e. Anantaram Sahu sold the case land to the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Chittaranjan Panda through Registered Sale Deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 and delivered possession thereof. But, the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Chittaranjan Panda died leaving behind the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 as his successors. During consolidation operation, the R.o.R of the case land was prepared in favour of the petitioners. For which, WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 filed a revision vide R.C. No.124 of 2006 before the Opp. Party No.2 for correction of R.o.R of the case land to their names. The said Revision Case No.124 of 2006 was disposed of finally remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Sambalpur for its hearing afresh. 3. After hearing, the Consolidation Officer-cum-Sub- Collector, Sambalpur allowed the case of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 and directed Tahasildar, Sambalpur for correction of the R.o.R of the case land from the name of the petitioners (petitioners in this writ petition) to the name of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4. Accordingly, the R.o.R of the case land was prepared in the name of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 vide Khata No.228/654 bearing Chaka No.85/882. Thereafter, the petitioners filed WP(C) No.1902 of 2024 before this Court challenging the order passed in R.C. No.124 of 2006.
Decision
After hearing from both the sides, this Court disposed of that WP(C) No.1902 of 2024 on dated 03.12.2024 giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the revisional authority WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order for hearing of the revision case No.124 of 2006 again filed by the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 of this writ petition. 4. During the course of hearing of the Revision Case No.124 of 2006 before the Opp. Party No.2 afresh, the petitioners raised the contentions that, the sale deed of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 in respect of the case land is void according to Section 34 & 35 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 as the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 purchased the part Chaka fragmenting the Chaka. 5. After hearing from both the sides, the Revisional Court i.e. Opp. Party No.2 finally disposed of that Revision Case No.124 of 2006 on dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) afresh and held that, “the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 have the right, title and interest in the case land, because, their father i.e. Chitta Ranjan Panda had lawfully purchased the same from Anantaram Sahu through R.S.D. No.2012 dated 08.10.1985, and they (Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4) are in possession over the same, for which, it would be iniquitous to deny and disallow WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 4 of 9 the rightful claim of the petitioners of the Revision Case No.124 of 2006 i.e. Deepak Kumar Panda and Alok Kumar Panda (Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 of this writ petition), in view of the introduction of Section 36-A into the statute book and omission of chapter V including Section 34 and 35 from the said Statute Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972, therefore, the Sale Deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 executed by the father of the petitioners in favour of the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 in respect of the case land cannot be held as void and invalid under law.” 6. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in R.C. No.124 of 2006 in favour of the petitioners thereof i.e. Deepak Kumar Panda and Alok Kumar Panda (Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 in this writ petition), the petitioners in this writ petition challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the said impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in R.C. No.124 of 2006 by the Opp. Party No.2. 7. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 5 of 9 8. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, as by the time of purchase of the case land through R.S.D. No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 creating fragmentation of the Chaka land, Sections 34 & 35 were not deleted/omitted from the Statute Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972, for which, the subsequent omissions of the Chapter V from the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 including Section 34 & 35 from the Statute Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972 cannot make the sale deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 in respect of the case land valid. Because at the time of registration of the sale deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 in favour of the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4, the said deed was void and non-est in the eye of law in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the OCH & PFL Act. Because, the said sale deed in respect of the case land was executed creating fragmentation of the Chaka. The newly introduced/incorporated Section into the Statute Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972 is Section 36-A. As per Section 36-A of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972, WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 6 of 9 “Any transfer or partition of agricultural land in a locality creating fragmentation made under the Principal Act before the commencement of the Odisha Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land (Amendment) Act, 2023, shall be treated as valid.” 9. The time, from which date, Section 36-A of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 shall be effective has been clarified by this Court in a case between Benudhar Swain VS. Bahudi Jena reported in 2024 (2) OLR Page 261 wherein it has been held that, “it is well neigh, the settled position of law that the change in law after the disposal of the original proceedings can be well taken note of in the pending proceeding arising out of the original proceedings”. 10. When the change of law has been taken place during the pendency of the original proceeding vide R.C. No.124 of 2006 through omission of Sections 33, 34 & 35 from the Statute Book of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972, then, as per law, the newly introduced Section i.e. Section 36-A shall govern the field for adjudication of this writ petition arising out of original proceeding vide R.C. No.124 of 2006. WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 7 of 9 So, by applying the propositions of law clarified above in the ratio of the decision referred to supra and taking the amended Act of 2023 w.e.f. 29.12.2023 concerning the omission of Chapter V including Section 33,34 & 35 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 and introduction of Section 36-A in the Statute Book of OCH & PFL Act, 1972 into account, it is held that, the findings and observations made by the Revisional Authority i.e. Opp. Party No.2 in R.C. No.124 of 2006 that, the transfer made by the father of the petitioners i.e. in favour of the father of the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 as per sale deed No.2012 dated 08.10.1985 in respect of the case land was valid and the same was not hit and barred under Section 35 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 are not erroneous in any manner. For which, the question of interfering with the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Opp. Party No.2 in R.C. No.124 of 2006 through this writ petition filed by the petitioners does not arise. 11. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must fail. WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 8 of 9 12. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed on contest. 13. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 26 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 27-Sep-2025 10:34:52 WP(C) No.17072 of 2025 Page 9 of 9