Allowed

Laxmikanta Padhi v. Collector,Rayagada

Orissa HC20 Nov 2019OJC/13709/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order passed by the competent authority under Regulation-II of 1956 refusing permission for a sale that had already been executed via registered sale deed and possession delivery. The court found the lower authority mechanically considered Section 3(b) despite the completed transaction, substituting its own view to allow the sale.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Section 3(a) of Regulation-II of 1956 set aside; writ petition succeeds.

Laxmikanta Padhi Vs Collector,Rayagada — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

OJC No.13709 of 2001

¶2

08. 20.11.2019

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri U.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the O.Ps.1 and 2.

¶4

The writ petition involves a challenge to the order at Annexure-1 passed under the provision of Section 3(a) of the amended Regulation-II of 1956.

¶5

Taking this Court to the impugned order and the grounds raised herein, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the main ground of interference in the sale transaction between the petitioners and the private opposite parties is that there is non-compliance of statutory notice period before grant of permission under the provision of the Regulation-II of 1956. While furnishing a copy of permission letter along with the sale deed registered immediately after the permission being granted, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the private opposite parties are satisfied with the permission letter and enter into the consequential registered sale deed on receipt of the amount involved therein, they are stopped from raising complain otherwise. It is in the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no proper consideration of the issue involved resulting the bad and illegal impugned order.

¶6

Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for O.Ps.1 and 2 taking this Court to the discussions and the reasons assigned in the impugned order and also

¶7

uks

¶8

¶9

taking to the statutory requirement before grant of permission under Regulation-II of 1956 for sale of land outside the Schedule Tribe contended that admittedly there is statutory violation and as such, submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶10

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the permission letter of the competent authority granted in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of Regulation-II of 1956, this Court finds, this permission was granted after entering into the enquiry at the instance of the private opposite parties. The permission letter clearly discloses the condition for grant of such permission. Parties have already entered into the registered sale deed on receipt of price of the land and there is also delivery of possession by the vendor to the petitioners on satisfaction of all requirements. It appears a review proceeding has been initiated after almost four years of permission being granted. This Court finds surprise in the attitude of the Vendor in raising such allegation and asking the Government Authorities to take up the issue u/s.3(b) of the Regulation-II of 1956. It also appears the competent authority failed in appreciating the purpose behind Section 3(b), which requires such exercise only to undertake where there is absolutely illegal and impermissible transfer and/or illegal occupation of land belonging to S.T. in absence of which, this Court finds there is mechanical consideration of the proceeding by the competent authority. This Court therefore interfering

¶11

¶12

with the impugned order at Annexure-1 set aside the same.

¶13

The writ petition accordingly succeeds.

¶14

…....……………………… Biswanath Rath, J.

¶15

¶16

Laxmikanta Padhi v. Collector,Rayagada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmikanta Padhi v. Collector,Rayagada

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

U.I.I.Co.Lotd. Vs Ranjan Sahu

Kanti Prakash Vs State Seed Corpn.

Fagu Pani Vs State

Benudhar Nayak Vs State

Bhagirathi Panda Vs United Bank India.

Ahalya Sabatta Vs Sanjukta Sabatta