Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.21884 of 2022 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Srikrishna Ray .......…… Petitioner -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others ……….. Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. D.P.Pradhan,Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G.Mohanty, SC P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 17.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 03.04.2025 WP(C) No.21884 of 2022 Page 1 of 7 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the imposed condition in the permission for sale granted in his favour under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 on dated 21.06.2022 (Annexure 10) in OLR Case No.14 of 2020 and to allow the petitioner to sell his properties without any condition only on the basis of as usual 10% increase of Bench Mark Valuation. 2. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, he (petitioner) belongs to Schedule Caste Community having his Sub Caste Namasudra and he is the owner of the properties indicated in the Annexure 10. In order to meet the expenditures of his self-medical treatments, he (petitioner) gave proposal for sale of his properties indicated in the Annexure 10 to the local persons of S.C. and S.T.
Legal Reasoning
Community first, but, nobody from the local S.C. and S.T. community was interested to purchase the same. Thereafter, without getting any way, he (petitioner) gave proposal for sale of the same to the local general caste people, as he was in urgent WP(C) No.21884 of 2022 Page 2 of 7 need of money for his self-medical treatments and one person from the general caste community became interested to purchase the same only after the grant of required permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act. 3. For which, in order to sell the properties covered under Annexure 10, he (petitioner) filed an application under Section 22 of the OLR Act vide OLR Case No.14 of 2020 before the appropriate revenue authority i.e. before the Sub Collector, Malkangiri (O.P. No.2) praying for granting him permission to sell the said properties in favour of the general caste people. 4. After considering all the materials as per law, the Sub Collector Malkangiri (O.P. No.2), as per order dated 21.06.2022 (Annexure 10) granted permission to sell the said properties in favour of a person of general caste community imposing the condition in Para No.4 of the said Annexure 10 that, “sell through registered deed is allowed subject to condition that, the applicant is required to purchase equal area of land of any Kissam in Malkangiri Registration District and the registration of both the land should be made at a time for the purpose of his medical treatments”. WP(C) No.21884 of 2022 Page 3 of 7 5. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid imposed condition indicated in the order dated 21.06.2022 (Annexure 10) passed/issued by the Sub Collector, Malkangiri (O.P. No.2), the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing (setting aside) the above condition indicated in Para No.4 of Annexure 10 as well as challenging the Bench Mark Valuation indicated in the said Annexure 10 on the ground that, when the Sub Collector, Malkangiri (O.P. No.2) granted permission vide Annexure 10 to the petitioner for selling his properties to a person other than S.C. and S.T. for his self- medical treatments out of the consideration amounts thereof, then, the above condition imposed in the said Annexure 10 directing him (petitioner) to purchase land equal to the area of sold land on the same time has indirectly made such permission invalid/infructuous. Because, the permission for sale was granted by the O.P. No.2 in favour of the petitioner for no other reason, but only, for his self-medical treatments out of the sold money of the permitted properties, then, how it will be possible on his part to purchase properties equal to the area of the sold land at the same time, when, he (petitioner) has been permitted/allowed for spending the consideration amounts for his WP(C) No.21884 of 2022 Page 4 of 7 self-medical treatments. For which, the condition imposed in Annexure 10 is liable to be quashed as well as the high Bench Mark Valuation indicated in the Column No.6 of Annexure 10 is also liable to be quashed. 6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 7. The crux of this writ petition is that, “Whether the condition imposed in Annexure 10 i.e. to purchase equal area of sold land by the petitioner at the same time is legally sustainable under law? 8. When, it is forthcoming from the Annexure 10 that, the main object of granting permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act in OLR Case No.14 of 2020 by the O.P. No.2 in favour of the petitioner for selling his properties covered therein was for his self-medical treatments out of the sold money of the said properties after being fully satisfied through due/proper enquiry about the requirements of money by the petitioner for his self- medical treatments, then at this juncture, the condition imposed in the said Annexure 10 to purchase properties at the same time WP(C) No.21884 of 2022 Page 5 of 7 by the petitioner equal to the areas of sold land cannot be sustainable under law. Because, the above imposed condition in the Annexure 10 has automatically become infructuous only for the reasons that, when the main purpose/object of granting permission for sale under Section 22 of the OLR Act in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure 10 was for his self-medical treatments and when he (petitioner) shall spend the consideration amounts for his self-medical treatments, then, how it will be possible on his part to purchase properties equal to the areas of the sold land at the same time. For which, the above imposed condition in Annexure 10 being self-contradictory, the same is held as redundant. 9. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the Bench Mark Valuation indicated in Column No.6 of Annexure 10 is concerned, the valuation of the property for registration of a particular plot depends upon the Bench Mark Valuation available in the registration office at the time of registration. For which, the question of giving any observation in respect of the Bench Mark Valuation of the properties indicated in the Annexure 10 does not arise. Because, the registration is to be made on the basis of the Bench Mark Valuation available in the Sub Register’s Office in its WP(C) No.21884 of 2022 Page 6 of 7 official record at the time of registration of the sale deed for the sold land in question. 10. As per the discussions and observations made above, there
Decision
is some merit in the writ petition of the petitioner, the same is to be allowed in part. 11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. 12. The condition imposed in Para No.4 of Annexure 10 by the Sub Collector, Malkangiri (O.P. No.2) is quashed keeping the other parts/portions of such permission (Annexure 10) for sale of the properties indicated in the Annexure 10 intact/uninterferred. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 03.04.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Apr-2025 19:51:00 WP(C) No.21884 of 2022 Page 7 of 7