The Court set aside an order passed under Section 3(2) of Regulation 2 of 1956 by the Sub-Collector. Holding that no proceedings under the Regulation could nullify an action initiated under the O.P.D.R. Act regarding a sale certificate.
The order passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunupur under S. 3(2) of Regulation 2 of 1956 was set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 1762 of 2008
This writ petition involves a challenge to the order vide Annexure-3 passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunupur in OSATIP Case No.508/04 on 9.1.2008 in exercise of power U/s.3(2) of Regulation 2 of 1956. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the purchase of property involving the auction process for realization of the State Revenue, no proceeding U/s.3(2) of Regulation 2 of 1956 is maintainable. By showing a decision of this Court in the case of Purna Chandra Bisoi
Versus State of Orissa & others involving W.P.(C) No.6472 of 2008, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks application of the benefit granted therein to the case at hand.
Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, taking this Court to the discussions and findings of the SubCollector, Gunpur in the impugned order vide Annexure-3 submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore while objecting the claim of the petitioner made in this Writ Petition, learned State Counsel prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that though the petitioner has purchased the disputed property from a person belongs to Scheduled Tribe, but involving a certificate proceeding arising out of a proceeding initiated under the O.P.D.R. Act involving an action for realization of public debt. Considering the similar situation, this Court in
2
disposal of the W.P.(C) No.6472 of 2008 has already come to hold that since the petitioner has purchased the property involving a certificate proceeding initiated under the O.P.D.R Act, no proceeding under the Regulation 2 of 1956 can nullify such action. Further as the Regulation 1956 authorizes such sale, the same need not require sanction of competent authority. In such view of the matter, this Court interfering with the impugned order vide Annexure-3 sets aside the same.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
....……………………... Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
Ajaya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a proceeding under S. 3(2) of Regulation 2 of 1956 is maintainable to nullify a sale certificate proceeding initiated under the O.P.D.R. Act for realization of public debt.
Whether the sale of property involving a certificate proceeding under the O.P.D.R. Act requires sanction of the competent authority under Regulation 2 of 1956.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Purna Chandra Bisoi Versus State of Orissa & othersDistinguished¶6
W.P.(C) No. 6472 of 2008
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
