Bijaya Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) in OLRC No.19-77/2023.

¶21

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner belong to SC community having his sub-caste (Dhoba). In order to meet the expenses of the marriage of his daughter, he (petitioner) applied for permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 before the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) to sell his properties under Khata No.1172/1696 in Mouza-Subhani to a non-scheduled caste persons indicating in detail about the property particulars in his application, as no one of his caste people was willing to purchase his said properties providing present market value thereof.

¶22

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

¶23

Page 2 of 10

¶24

On the basis of the aforesaid application of the petitioner, a case vide OLRC No.19-77/2023 under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 was initiated before the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) and an inquiry was conducted by him (Opp. Party No.3).

¶25

On the basis of the report of the W.E.O, Chikiti and Tahasildar, Chikiti, the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) passed the final order in OLRC No.19-77/2023 on dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure-5) and rejected to the prayer for permission to sell his properties indicated in his application assigning the reasons that,

¶26

“ Perused the report of Tahasildar and WEO which discloses that, the applicant belong to SC by caste and Dhoba by Sub-caste. Applied land stands recorded in favour of the applicant. The recorded tenant wants to sell the above lands for daughter’s marriage.

¶27

Examined the applicant and it is learnt that the petitioner requires to alienate the lands for the above purpose. As ascertained the applied lands recorded in his favour in rayati status.

¶28

Perused the report of Tahasildar and WEO concerned, purpose of application and present prayer of the petitioner, to grant permission for the applied patch of land.

¶29

General proclamation inviting objection from the locality duly been published. A copy of the notice was also sent to

¶30

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

¶31

Page 3 of 10

¶32

ADWO/W.E.O. inviting objection. No objection received from any corner till date. From the report of Tahasildar, the applicant is not coming under landless/homestead less criteria.

¶33

However as the applicant has applied for alienation/ sale of another two lands from all these only the land bearing khata no: 1172/1695 plot number 5968/8728, 5957/8487/8727, 5958/8488, 5959/8489/8726, 5962/8725, 5963, 5964/8724 Area Ac.0.756, Kissama Bila do fasali-II in Suvani Mouza under Chikiti Tahasil is allowed for sale and rest two lands ie Khata no: 1172/1696 Plot number 5965/9282, 5956/8485/9283, 5968/9284, Area Ac.0.304, Kissama Bila do fasali-II & Khata no: 1172/1697 Plot numbers 5965/9309, 5964, 5957/8487,5967/8485/9310, Area Ac-0.046 in Suvani Mouza under Chikiti Tahasil are not allowed/ rejected to sale these lands.

¶34

Though the applicant has balance land of area- 9.009, I am not inclined to grant permission to sale such huge amount of land for marriage purpose of the applicant's daughter.”

¶35

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶36

The learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that, the statutory appellate forum under Section 58 of the OLR Act, 1960 to challenge the

¶37

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

¶38

Page 4 of 10

¶39

impugned order is available, for which, in spite of availability of the statutory appellate forum to challenge the impugned order passed under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as it has been envisaged in Section 58(1) of the OLR Act that, any order passed under Section 22(1) of the OLR Act, 1960 is appealable under OLR Act i.e. before the A.D.M, Berhampur.

¶40

4. As per Section 22 (1)(a) of the OLR Act, 1960 in order to grant permission for sale, the Sub-Divisional Officer/Revenue Officer must be satisfied that, no person of scheduled caste community willing to purchase the said properties providing the market price thereof and after such satisfaction along with the fulfilment of other criterias, permission for sale under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 can be granted to the applicant/petitioner.

¶41

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

¶42

I. In a case between Karunakar Gond v. Pitabas Sahu reported in 1986 (I) OLR 14 that, while granting permission, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue Officer) must satisfy himself that, a purchaser belonging to a Schedule Tribe or Scheduled Caste willing to pay the market price for the land is not available. This is the pre-

¶43

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

¶44

Page 5 of 10

¶45

requisite for grant of permission for effecting a sale to a non-scheduled caste and nonscheduled tribe person.

¶46

II. In a case between Rajanikanta Patra Vs. Smt. Sarojini reported in ILR 1985 (2) Cutt. 93 that, when the order granting permission to sell does not show the application of mind by the Revenue Officer in accordance with the statutory provisions to the proviso of Section 22(1) for satisfying himself that, no person belonging to scheduled caste is willing to purchase at the market price of the land, then, the permission accorded cannot be sustainable in law.

¶47

III. In a case between Gangaram Singh Vs. Mayadhar reported in 44 (1977) CLT 332 that, granting permission for sale by a scheduled caste person in favour of a nonscheduled caste person, it is necessary for the revenue officer to satisfy himself that, there is no person belonging to a scheduled caste willing to pay the market price and to purchase the land and after such satisfaction, permission can be granted by the revenue officer under Section 22 of the OLR Act.

¶48

5. In the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 vide Annexure-

¶49

5 passed by the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3), there is no whisper or indication that, no person of scheduled caste community is willing to purchase the said properties as per the present market price.

¶50

As per law, the above satisfaction is the pre-requisite for granting permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 for selling the properties of the applicant.

¶51

Here in this matter at hand, when there is no indication

¶52

in the impugned order passed by the Sub-Collector,

¶53

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

¶54

Page 6 of 10

¶55

Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) that, there is no person belonging to the scheduled caste community willing to purchase the land of the petitioner paying the market price thereof, though, the petitioner has stated about the same in his application, then, at this juncture, it is held that, the impugned order passed by the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) is not in accordance with law.

¶56

6. That apart, in the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) has specifically stated that, “ it is learnt ” the petitioner requires the alienation of the land for the purpose of his daughter’s marriage without stating anything from whom, the SubCollector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) learnt about the same.

¶57

Therefore, the aforesaid findings of the Opp. Party No.3 in the impugned order using the words i.e. “ it is learnt ” is on the basis of surmises and conjunctures.

¶58

When, for the reasons assigned above, it is held that, the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) is not in

¶59

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

¶60

Page 7 of 10

¶61

conformity with the law, then, at this juncture, the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be non-entertainable under law.

¶62

The conclusion drawn above finds support from the ratio of the following decision:

¶63

I. In a case between Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd, Surya Nagar, Unit No. VII, Bhubaneswar, represented through its Director, P. Vivek. Vs. State of Orissa & others decided on 18.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019 that, the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere with an order passed by the statutory authority, when it acts in a manner not recognized under law.

¶64

7. The law relating to the passing of any order on surmises

¶65

and conjunctures using the words “ it is learnt ” without any independent opinion on hearsay material i.e. on surmises

¶66

and conjunctures has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision:

¶67

I. In a case between State of Uttarakhand & Another Vs. Ravi Kumar (deceased) through LRs

¶68

and Others reported in (2023) 18 SCC 281 that, any decision cannot be based on conjunctures and surmises or on the basis of mere guesswork.

¶69

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

¶70

Page 8 of 10

¶71

8. As per the discussions and observations made above when, it is held that, the impugned order has been passed not in a manner recognized under law and on the basis of conjunctures, surmises and on mere guess work, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed in OLRC No.19-77/2023 by the SubCollector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 cannot be sustainable under law.

¶72

For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶73

9. As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed in part.

¶74

10. The impugned order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) in OLRC No.19-77/2023 is quashed.

¶75

11. The matter vide OLRC No.19-77/2023 is remitted back to the Sub-Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) to decide the same afresh in accordance with the provisions of law

¶76

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

¶77

Page 9 of 10

¶78

envisaged in Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 as per the observations made in this Judgment after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and following all the formalities thereof as expeditiously as possible.

¶79

12. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶80

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶81

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 14..11. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer

¶82

Signature Not Verified

¶83

Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cutt ack, India. Date: 17-Nov-2025 19:49:04

¶84

WP(C) No.13096 of 2025