Disposed¶27

Haladhar Nayak v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC15 Dec 2025OJC/5239/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OJC No.5239 of 1997, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 15.12.2025 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.). Keywords: Regulation 56 prior permission; sale deed by Scheduled Tribe member; non-tribal purchaser; adverse possession declaration by revenue authority impermissible; Regulation Appeal Case No. 8/1995 (Annexure-2) quashed; Regulation Appeal Case No. 12/1996 (Annexure-1) upheld; relied on 2023 (I) ILR-CUT-429; Amarendra Pratap Singh Vrs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, AIR 2004 SC 3782; Sec. 23(A) OLR Act; paragraph 7-D of the Regulations; Article 65 & Section 27 Limitation Act, 1963; Article 227 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Order dtd.19.12.1996 passed by Opp. Party No. 2 in Regulation Appeal Case No. 8/1995 (Annexure-2) quashed; order under Annexure-1 (rejection by Opp. Party No. 3) upheld; writ petition disposed of.

Haladhar Nayak Vs State of Orissa — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dtd.19.12.1996 passed by Opp. Party No. 2 in Regulation Appeal Case No. 8/1995 (Annexure-2) quashed; order under Annexure-1 (rejection by Opp. Party No. 3) upheld; writ petition disposed of.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dtd.19.12.1996 passed by Opp. Party No. 2 in Regulation Appeal Case No. 8/95 (Annexure-2), declaring the title of deceased Opp. Party No. 4 by way of adverse possession despite the sale deed having been executed without prior permission, is sustainable in the eye of law. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Since the sale deed executed by the deceased Petitioner was without the prior permission of the competent authority required under Regulation 56, Opp. Party No. 3 rightly rejected the claim of deceased Opp. Party No. 4 vide order under Annexure-1.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

With the finding that the sale deed was executed without prior permission of the competent authority, the title of the deceased Opp. Party No. 4 could not have been declared by way of adverse possession, which is not permissible.

¶24

Key takeaways

Revenue authorities, while dealing with matters of such nature, are not competent to declare title by way of adverse possession.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, OJC No.5239 of 1997 (Order No.15, dated 15.12.2025), Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. — Writ petition by Haladhar Nayak, a Scheduled Tribe vendor, challenging the appellate revenue order dtd.19.12.1996 (Annexure-2) passed by Opp. Party No. 2 in Regulation Appeal Case No. 8/1995, whereby, although the authority found that the sale deed in favour of the deceased purchaser Rama Chandra Mohanta (Opp. Party No. 4) had been executed without prior permission of the competent authority under Regulation 56, it declared the purchaser's title by way of adverse possession, reversing Opp. Party No. 3's rejection order dtd.31.08.1995 in Regulation Appeal Case No. 12/1996 (Annexure-1). Relying on a decision of this Court in 2023 (I) ILR-CUT-429 — which discusses Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, AIR 2004 SC 3782, and the pari materia Sec. 23(A) OLR Act — the Court held that a sale deed executed without the prior permission required under Regulation 56 gives no basis for declaration of title, that title could not be declared by way of adverse possession, and that revenue authorities dealing with such matters are not competent to declare title by adverse possession. The Court quashed the Annexure-2 order, upheld the Annexure-1 order, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK OJC No.5239 of 1997

¶2

Haladhar Nayak ..... Petitioners Mr. N.P. Parija, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

15.12.2025

Order No.15

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶11

Heard Mr. N.P. Parija, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. In spite of appearance, nobody is there on behalf of Opp. Party No. 4. None had also appeared when the matter was taken up by this Court on 08.12.2025.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.19.12.1996 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-2.

¶13

It is the case of the Petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and sale deed executed in favour of the deceased Rama Chandra Mohanta since was so executed without prior permission of the competent authority, claim of the deceased Opp. Party No. 4 was rejected by Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.31.08.1995 in Regulation Appeal Case No. 12/1996 under Annexure-1.

¶14

4.1. It is contended that challenging such an order passed by Opp. Party No. 3, the deceased Opp. Party No. 4 moved the appellate

¶15

Page 1 of 5.

¶16

authority-Opp. Party No. 2 by filing Regulation Appeal Case No. 8/1995. Even though Opp. Party No. 2 came to a finding that the sale deed has been executed without prior permission of the competent authority, but on the ground that the deceased Opp. Party No. 4 is in possession of the case land after its purchase vide sale deed executed in the year 1964-67, declared his title by way of adverse possession.

¶17

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that under the provisions of Regulation 56, there is no such provision to declare the possession of a non-tribal person by way of adverse possession. Showing pari materia provision so contained under Sec. 23(A) of the OLR Act, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2023 (I) ILR-CUT-429. This Court in Para 9 of the said judgment has held as follows:-

¶18

“It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court also reading through the aforesaid provision finds, the mechanism through the OLR Act has been created involving the aforesaid provision to give protection to the scheduled tribe and scheduled caste persons from being dislocated from their properties in any manner. It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court finds, this position has been examined again and again and finally the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh Vrs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors. as reported in AIR 2004 SC 3782 has made a threadbare discussion involving a case of one of the party a non-tribe therein claiming right through adverse possession for his long possession over the property. This Court finds, the Hon'ble Apex Court while keeping in view possibility of right created in favour of the non-tribe person by way of adverse possession, if

¶19

Page 2 of 5.

¶20

any, taking into account the protection of right of tribes under paragraph no.7-D of the Regulations read with Article 65 & Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has come to clearly observe that a non-tribal can neither prescribe nor acquire title by way of adverse possession over the property belonging to a tribal, as the same is specifically prohibited by a special law promulgated by the State Legislature or the Governor in exercise of power conferred in that regard by the Constitution of India. It is further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a general law cannot defeat the provision of a Special law to the extent to which they are in conflict; else an effort has to be made at reconciling the two provisions by homogenous reading. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also further held that a wrongful possession of a non-tribe even involving a sale transaction has not ripened into acquisition of title by adverse possession. This Court finds, the judgments of all the three forums are well covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh (supra). It is for the application of the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court to the case at hand, this Court does not like to relay on the judgments of the Orissa High Court relied on by the Petitioners. Question No.2 framed hereinabove is answered against the Petitioners. Further there also involves a concurrent finding of fact by all the three forums thereby limiting the scope of interference in such orders in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the ultimate this Court finds no scope to interfere in the impugned order.”

¶21

4.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, it is contended that since the sale deed has been executed without prior permission of the competent authority, the said sale deed is a nullity in the eye of law and basing on such sale deed, no title flows.

¶22

Page 3 of 5.

¶23

4.4. Even though the original authority-Opp. Party No. 3 and the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 2 came to a finding that such a sale deed has been executed without prior permission of the competent authority so executed by the deceased PetitionerHaladhar Naik, but on the ground that basing on such illegal sale deed, deceased-Opp. Party No. 4 is in possession of the suit land, his claim could not have been allowed taking recourse to the provisions contained under Limitation Act and by declaring his title by way of adverse possession. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed in Regulation Appeal Case No. 8/95 by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-2 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶24

Since in spite of appearance, nobody is appearing for substituted Opp. Party No. 4, this Court in absence of the engaged counsel and considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is of the view that since the sale deed executed by the deceased Petitioner is without prior permission of the competent authority so required under Regulation 56, Opp. Party No. 3 rightly rejected the claim of deceased Opp. Party No. 4 vide order under Annexure-1. It is also the view of this Court that, with the finding that the sale deed has been executed without prior permission of the competent authority, title of the deceased Opp. Party No. 4 could not have been declared by way of adverse possession, which is not permissible. Revenue authorities while dealing with matter of such nature are not competent to declare title by way of adverse possession.

¶25

5.1. Placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra) and the fact that the sale deed has been executed without prior permission of the competent authority, this Court is inclined to quash order

¶26

Page 4 of 5.

¶27

dtd.19.12.1996 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 in Regulation Appeal Case No. 8/1995 under Annexure-2. While quashing the said order, this Court upheld the order passed under Annexure-1.

¶28

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶29

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶30

Sneha

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 17-Dec-2025 18:00:55

¶33

Page 5 of 5.

Haladhar Nayak v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haladhar Nayak v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanna Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bikram Keshari Rout Vs Aravind Agarwal, IAS

Kumudini Bastia Vs Subrat Kumar Panda,Collector Cum C.E.O, Zilla Parisad, Boudh

Kashmir Lal Vs M/S.Ipinit

Rabindra Ku.Ghadai Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Puspa Oil Vs M/S.Ipinit