Allowed

Ch. Bharathi v. State

Orissa HC2 May 2017WP(C)/3169/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ challenge against an order directing restoration of land. The High Court held that the sale under old 1956 provisions was valid where the vendor retained sufficient land then, making the application of stricter 2000 amendments impermissible retrospectively.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing restoration of land is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.

Heard Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for t he opposite party No.4. This writ petition has been filed as against the order passed by the competent authori ty in exercise of power under the Regulation-II of 1956 vide Annexure-5. As appears, the Regul ation-II proceeding was initiated under the premises that the vendor i.e. the opposite party N o.4 did not have the approval of the competent authority following provisions contained in Sec tion 3 of the Regulation-II read with the provisions contained in amended Regulation-II of 200 0.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the materials produced before the competent authority, the competent authority came to hold that the sale t aken place in between the vendor of the petitioner is not in consonance with the Section 3 of the Regulation-II and as a consequence, while allowing the proceeding vide OSATIP (R) No.154 o f 2001, the competent authority directed for restoration of the land in favour of the vendor. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner taking reference to t he materials available on record and the provisions contained in Regulation-II of 1956 and the amended provisions of the Regulation-II, 2000 submitted that for the existence of a valid per mission and further for the vendors still having minimum requirement of land in his possession following the statutory provisions under Regulation-II, the competent authority went wrong in observing against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction and taking resort to the materials a vailable on record contended that after sale of Ac.0.02 decimals of land involved in the dispu te, the opposite party No.4 still possessed more than one acre of land, which satisfies the co nditions in the Regulation-II of 1956. The restriction in the amended Regulation-II having com e into force after the sale involved is effected to, the restriction in the amended Regulation has no application to the case.

Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection to the submis sion of Sri Rao that not only there existed due permission but the opposite party No.4 also po ssess the minimum required extent of land after the sale involved. There is also no denial to the submission that the case has been wrongly decided on the basis of non-existance of the pro visions. Sri Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has also no objection.

Considering that the sale deed was executed between the parties under the old provisio n and that the vendor of the petitioner still remained with more than required extent of land under the old provisions, this Court finds, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye o f law and as such, the same is interfered with and set aside.

Ch. Bharathi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Bharathi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhruguram Pradhan Vs State

Mano R.Purohit Vs State and Ors.

Sridhar Prasad Sahoo Vs Rdc,Cuttack

Balaram Vs Sarathi

Orient Paper andINDUS. Vs Regional Direc.,Esi

Sajan Ku.Rout Vs State of Orissa