Allowed

Rama Chandra Das v. Addl. D.M., Mayurbhanj

Orissa HC15 Dec 2021WP(C)/24553/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed the cancellation of a 2015 registered sale deed that was deemed void. The Court held that since the deed related to the full Chaka plot rather than a fragment, Section 34(3) of the O.C.H. & P.L. Act, 1972, which mandates permission, was inapplicable, necessitating restoration of registration.

What did the court decide?

Registration of the sale deed was to be restored within two weeks of communication of the order.

Rama Chandra Das Vs Addl. D.M., Mayurbhanj — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.24553 of 2019

¶3

(Through hybrid mode)

¶4

Ram Chandra Das and another …. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. S.K.Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Addl. D.M., Mayurbhanj and others Opposite Parties Mr.A.K.Sharma, Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER 15.12.2021

Order No.

04.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, a sale deed executed in year 2015 was presented for registration. The document was registered. When his client went to collect the original document, he was told that the registration had been cancelled. Reason given was that earlier there are deeds registered in respect of the land.

¶13

He explains, earlier his client and private opposite party nos.5 to 7 had sought to buy fragmented plots. Those deeds were registered but by reason of the bar in Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, the sales were void ab initio. As such, his client thereafter purchased the entire holding by the 2015 deed, registered and then cancelled.

¶14

Page 1 of 1

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Addl. Govt. Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, re-registration was cancelled and the entries deleted. Against that appeal was preferred but the act upheld. Earlier writ petition was filed. Pursuant to order made in that writ petition, there was review filed by petitioner. Order dated 30^th August, 2019 was passed on review. He relies on following in the review order.

¶17

“But in case of the appellants, it is revealed that the appellant No.1 had already purchased an area of Ac.01.38 dec. partly from Chaka plot of Khata No.52 vide R.S.D. No.2045 dated 21.12.1992 and again pressed the vendor Narendranath Behera for transfer of full Chaka Plot for which the vendor again the appellants have produced R.S.D. No.1291501107 on dated 08.12.2015 before SubRegistrar, Udala without obtaining permission from the competent authority as required U/S.34(3) of the O.C.H. & P.L.Act, 1972 for which the Registering Officer has rightly deleted the Sale deed after execution and at the subsequent stage the appellate authority considering all the legal aspects dismissed the appeal case filed by the appellants.”

¶18

It appears on the face of the review order that earlier part of Chakka plot was sought to be purchased by petitioner but deed presented and registered, then cancelled is in respect of the full Chaka plot, as purchased. Sub-section (3) in section 34 of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 requires permission obtained, when fragment plot is sought to be purchased/sold. Here the instrument, described by the authority in the review order is in respect of full Chaka plot. No permission is required.

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

RKS

The registration is to be restored within two weeks of communication of this order.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Arindam Sinha)

¶25

Judge

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Rama Chandra Das v. Addl. D.M., Mayurbhanj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Chandra Das v. Addl. D.M., Mayurbhanj

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

Ganesh K.Bramha Vs Bpcl and Ors.

Urmila Suhasaria Vs Cda,Cuttack

Abani Kumar Baag Vs Monalisa Mohanty

Shanti Kumari Mahato Vs Rourkela Development Authority

Tarulata Pradhan Vs the Branch Manager,Bank of India

M/S Balimela Hydro Electric Project (Unit of Odisha Hydro Power Corporation Ltd.) Vs District Consumer Redressal Commission