Allowed

Ramesh Mallik v. Rebati Mallik

Orissa HC16 Dec 2024WP(C)/15986/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner's challenge against an order invalidating his 2007 land sale. Relying on Section 36A of the 2023 Amendment Act, which validates pre-commencement consolidations, the court set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in OCH & PFL Misc. Case No. 3 of 2009 by opposite party No. 4 is set aside.

Ramesh Mallik Vs Rebati Mallik — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No.15986 of 2017

¶3

Ramesh Mallik

¶4

…. P e titioner Mr. Bijay Kumar Behera-1, A dvocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Rebati Mallik & o thers

¶7

…. Opposit e parties Mr. P.K.R a y, AGA

¶8

COR A M: MR. J USTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

¶9

ORDER 16.12.2024

¶10

Order No.

¶11

1. Heard M r. Behera, learned counsel for the petiti o ner and Mr. Ray, learne d AGA for the State.

¶12

Instant w rit petition is filed by the petitioner challe n ging the impugned orde r dated 31^st December, 2010 passed in connection with OCH & PFL Misc. Case No. 3 of 2009 by opposite party No.4 on the grounds s tated.

¶13

This C o urt, by order dated 22^nd November, 2 0 24, had allowed time f o r the State to respond to the contentio n of Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding applic a bility of Section 36A of O CH & PFL (Amendment) Act, 2023 and today, Mr. Ray, learned A G A would submit that the same applies pros p ectively and not to the case at hand.

¶14

In repl y and response to the above, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the following orders i n Urmila Sahoo Vrs. Col l ector & District Magistrate, Khurda & a n other in W.P.(C) No. 28 5 11 of 2019 dated 8^th May, 2024 and Sudas t na Sabat

¶15

P a ge 1 of 3

¶16

Vrs. The State o f Odisha & others in W.P.(C) No. 31595 of 2023 disposed of on 1^st August, 2024 to contend that the trans a ction in question stands v alidated in view of Section 36A of the Am e ndment Act.

¶17

A copy of the Notification dated 29^th December, 2 0 23 with regard to the A m endment Act is produced in Court today.

¶18

Under t he heading of validation of the transact i ons, the amendment has been brought in to the OCH & PFL Act b y way of Section 36A wh i ch is reproduced herein below.

¶19

“ 3 6A. Any transfer or partition of a g ricultural land in a locality creating fr a gmentation made under the Principal Act b e fore the commencement of the Odisha C o nsolidation of Holdings and Prevention o f Fragmentation of Land (Amendment) A c t, 2023, shall be treated as valid.”

¶20

The ab o ve provision stipulates that any such tr a nsfer or participation of agricultural land with a fragmentation u n der the Principal Act is to be treated as valid if the same has ta k en place before the com m encement of the Amendment Act, 2023.

¶21

The Co u rt has accepted a similar plea and passed o rders as referred to herein before by Mr. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the petition e r. In the present case, the petitioner is the p urchaser of the schedule land under a validly executed sale deed dated 10^th January, 2007 a nd is in possession of the same. Since suc h sale led to the fragment a tion of Chaka, Section 34 & 35 of the OCH & PFL Act was sought t o be invoked to invalidate it. However, M r . Behera learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is saved in

¶22

P a ge 2 of 3

¶23

view of Sectio n 36A of the Amendment Act which is t o apply retrospectively.

¶24

Consid e ring the facts pleaded on record and subm i ssions of learned counsel for the respective parties and taking judicial notice of Section 36A of the OCH & PFL (Amendment) Act, 2 0 23 and earlier views e x pressed by this Court, the conclusion is that the impugned orde r i.e. Annexure-1 is liable to be set aside.

¶25

10. Accordi n gly, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, the writ petition stands allowe d . As a necessary coroll a ry, the impugned order under Annexure-1 in OCH & PFL Misc. C a se No. 3 of 2009 under Annexure-1 by opposite party No.4 is h e reby set aside.

¶27

A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶28

kabita

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: Ohc, Cuttack Date: 18-Dec-2024 17:21:56

¶31

P a ge 3 of 3

Ramesh Mallik v. Rebati Mallik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Mallik v. Rebati Mallik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadha Gouda @ Pintu Vs State of Odisha

Nanda Kishore Jena Vs State of Odisha

Papu @ Susanta Das Vs State of Odisha

Raghunath Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Sandip Kumar Malla Vs Member,Board of Revenue,Cuttack

Akshya Kumar Beura Alias Akhaya Kumar Behura Vs Member,Board of Revenue, Cuttack