Allowed

Surendranath Sahu v. Kartik Chandra Sukla

Orissa HC14 Sept 2023CMP/1041/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa set aside an order rejecting a stay application under Section 10 C.P.C. It held that since a writ petition challenging the validity of the suit property based on Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act is pending, civil suit proceedings must remain stayed to prevent contradictory findings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Annexure-1 set aside; further proceedings in C.S. No.6765 of 2014 stayed till disposal of W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016.

Surendranath Sahu Vs Kartik Chandra Sukla — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP NO. 1041 OF 2018

¶3

Surendranath Sahoo

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate being assisted by Ms. S. Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Kartik Chandra Sukla and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Prafulla Kumar Jena, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

14.09.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

2 . Order dated 20^th March, 2018 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Salipur in C.S. No.6765 of 2014 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed under Section 10 C.P.C. to stay further proceedings of the suit till disposal of W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016 has been rejected.

¶15

Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest basing upon the registered sale deed dated 1^st August, 2001 executed by the predecessor of the Defendants. After purchase of the suit property, the PlaintiffPetitioner got the land mutated in his name. The said order of mutation was challenged by the Opposite Parties in Mutation Appeal stating that by alienating the property, there is a fragmentation of Chaka and no permission under Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) was obtained prior to execution of the sale deed. The Sub-Collector, Cuttack allowed

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

the mutation appeal against which the Petitioner preferred a revision, which was dismissed. Assailing the same, the Petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016, which is pending before this Court. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of mutation passed in favour of the Petitioner, the SubCollector, Cuttack held that the sale deed is void due to noncompliance of Section 22 of the Act.

¶19

Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate also submits that the case relating to the caste of Opposite Parties is also pending before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack. Since the sale deed has already been declared void by the Sub-Collector, Cuttack for alleged non-compliance of Section 22 of the Act and the matter is pending before this Court in W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016, the finding, if any, with regard to validity of the sale deed to be passed in the writ petition may operate as res judicata in the present suit, as the Petitioner claims title over the suit property on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 1^st August, 2001. Hence, an application under Section 10 C.P.C. was filed to stay further proceedings of the suit till disposal of W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016. Learned trial Court while deciding the petition categorically held that the matter in issue in the writ petition is directly and substantially the issue in the suit but holding that the writ petition arises out of a revision under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, rejected the petition.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

It is his submission that since the issue involved both in W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016 and the present suit are substantially same, learned trial Court should have stayed further proceedings of the suit till disposal of the writ petition. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and to stay further proceedings of the suit till disposal of W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016. 6. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for Opposite Parties, on the other hand, refuting the submission of Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Parties are the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. Hence, permission from the competent authority was required before alienation of the property in favour of the Petitioner by the predecessor of the Opposite Parties. In absence of such permission under Section 22 of the Act, the sale is void as rightly held by the Sub-Collector, Cuttack in the mutation appeal. He further submits that a fragment of Chaka has been sold to the Petitioner, which is hit under Section 34 of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972. As such, the sale deed in question is void in view of Section 35 of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972. Be that as it may, W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016 arises out of a proceeding under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. The order passed by the Civil Court is binding on the revenue Courts. As such, the order passed by the revenue Court will not operate as res judicata in the present suit. Hence, learned trial Court has committed no error in refusing the prayer under Section 10 C.P.C.

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

// 4 //

¶25

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition under Section 10 C.P.C. categorically held that the issue involved in W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016 is directly and substantially the issue involved in the suit. As laid down, a sale in violation of Section 22 of the Act is void ab initio . Thus, a finding to that effect is binding on the parties even in a civil suit, if not set aside by a competent Court of law. Since the issue with regard to violation of Section 22 of the Act is pending before this Court in W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016, it will affect the merit of the suit, if continued, during pendency of W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016.

¶26

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has committed an error in not staying further proceedings of the suit during pendency of W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016.

¶27

Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is set aside and further proceedings in C.S. No.6765 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Salipur shall remain stayed till disposal of W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP is disposed of.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶30

application. Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication bks Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 18-Sep-2023 10:58:25

¶32

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Surendranath Sahu v. Kartik Chandra Sukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendranath Sahu v. Kartik Chandra Sukla

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

M/S.Sterlite Energy Vs Smt.Renu Khaitan

Subash Chandra Tarenia Vs Pradip Kumar Tarenia

Tahamir Khan Vs Collector, Puri

Laxmidhar Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Surendranath Sahoo Vs Sabita Sukla

Bibhuti Bhusan Muduli Vs R.T.O.Kendrapara