Allowed

Kameswar Sharma v. Collector,Jharsuguda

Orissa HC8 Jul 2019WP(C)/10952/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging orders by appellate and revisional authorities. The court held it illegal for authorities to shift the vendor’s obligation to purchase agricultural land under Section 22 of the OLR Act to the purchasers, especially since the sale occurred before the purchase. The impugned orders were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders by the appellate and revisional authorities (Annexures-7 & 1) were set aside; the writ petition succeeded.

Kameswar Sharma Vs Collector,Jharsuguda — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO. 10952 OF 2008

¶2

7 8.7.2019

¶3

Heard Sri D.Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.N.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for O.Ps.1 to 3 and Sri S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the contesting O.P.5.

¶4

2. Short background involved in the case involves is that the father of present O.Ps.4 & 5 being the owner of the land under sale in favour of the petitioners filed an application under Section 22 of the OLR Act, vide OLR Case No.69/1994 before the competent authority seeking permission to sell the case land with clear condition to purchase any other suitable agricultural land. After observing all formalities, the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda accorded permission in favour of the father of O.Ps.4 & 5. As a consequence of grant of permission by the competent authority, the father of present O.Ps.4 & 5 sold the land in favour of the petitioners by way of registered sale deeds dated 23.6.1994 and 12.8.1994. As a consequence of registration of the sale involving O.Ps.4 & 5, the private opposite parties herein, and the petitioners involved herein, possession was accordingly delivered in favour of the petitioners. While the matter stood thus, O.Ps.4 & 5 after almost a gap of eight years and after the death of their father, filed an Appeal challenging the sale transaction, inter alia, the permission involved therein in between the petitioners and their father on the premises of violation of condition under Section 22 of the OLR Act. The Appeal being heard was decided on contest against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a Revision, vide Revision Case No.2/2007, which was heard and decided on contest against the petitioners, vide Annexure-1.

¶5

3. Sri D.Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶6

¶7

¶8

challenging the orders at Annexrues-1 & 2 and taking to the factual background involved herein submitted that for there being compliance of all formalities by the competent authority in the matter of grant of permission for sale of the disputed land and in the event, there is any lapses at the instance of the sale, no responsibility should have been fixed on the petitioners involving the sale involved therein. Sri D.Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the father of O.Ps.4 & 5 remaining satisfied with the sale and even having not purchased any land, the Revenue Officer did not take any action against him within the reasonable time. Further, the father of O.Ps.4 & 5 being the owner of the land having not raised any dispute involving sale deed, no proceeding should have been entertained at the instance of O.Ps.4 & 5 that too after gap of eight years. It is in the premises, Sri Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no further consideration for the land involved therein and the grounds therein by the competent authorities resulting the illegal impugned orders by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, vide Annexures-7 & 1.

¶9

4. Sri S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the contesting O.P.5 taking this Court to the document involving the case and the condition attached to Annexure-4 submitted that for the specific condition attached therein in the permission letter, it becomes the responsibility of the purchaser to ensure purchase of better agricultural land by his vendor prior to entering into the sale deed. It is in the above premises and for the specific condition, Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for O.P.5 submitted that there has been right

¶10

¶11

consideration by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority requiring no interference in the same. Involving the modified permission order, Sri Mohanty submitted that there was no competency with the Revenue Officer for entering into any modification.

¶12

5. Sri S.N.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for O.Ps.1 to 3 defending the orders at Annexures-7 & 1 supplementing the submission of Sri S.Mohanty, learned counsel for O.P.5, submitted that for the condition attached therein, the Revenue Officer even though was not vigilant, the registering authority should have ensured compliance of the condition under Annexure-4 before entering into the registration of any instrument. In the circumstance, Sri Mishra requested this Court for not interfering with the impugned orders and thereby dismissing the writ petition.

¶13

6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the land involved herein was sold by the father of O.Ps.4 & 5, being the exclusive owner of the property. On verification of the documents accompanied the writ petition from Annexure-4, this Court finds, it is an application under Section 22 of the OLR Act filed by the father of the contesting opposite parties to sell the land. Record further reveals that there has been notice as well as objection in the locality involving sale of the land and after compliance of all formalities, the Revenue Officer, vide Annexure-4 granted permission for sale of the land. Permission at Annexure-5 at the right side column indicates as follows :-

¶14

“Transfer as sell to the above named persons for a consideration amount of Rs.5000/- (rupees five

¶15

¶16

thousand) per decimal for purchase of better agricultural land.”

¶17

This being the condition, which stipulates purchase of agricultural land in lieu of sale of the land involved therein, no responsibility by the vendor can be attributed to the purchaser except the Revenue Officer remaining vigilant to see that the vendor spends money in the matter of exclusive purchase of agricultural land. In the circumstance and since the sale takes place prior to purchase of better agricultural land as the agricultural land should have been purchased on the earning through the sale of the land already existed with the father of the present contesting opposite parties, there was no question of purchase of agricultural land prior to sale taking effect.

¶18

7. From the above background, this Court finds, the finding of both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority also supports the case of the petitioners. This Court takes note of the finding of both the appellate and revisional authorities that the Revenue Officer did not remain vigilant at the relevant point of time. It is in the circumstance, this Court observes, both the appellate authority and revisional authority shifting the responsibility of purchase of agricultural land by the vendor of the petitioners to the petitioners, i.e., the purchasers, becomes illegal. In the circumstance, this Court interfering with the orders at Annexures-7 & 1 sets aside the same.

¶19

8. The writ petition succeeds.

¶20

…………………………

¶21

Biswanath Rath, J.

¶22

Kameswar Sharma v. Collector,Jharsuguda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kameswar Sharma v. Collector,Jharsuguda

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

Bhanumati Behura Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Manik Vs State of Odisha

Pabitra Routray Vs Sub-Collector

Kailash Ch.Sahu Vs Chakradhar Sahu andOR

Nidhi Parida Vs Akrura Gochhayat

Bibha Mandal Vs State and Anr.