Orissa High Court
Srikrishna Ray vs State Of Odisha & Others ........... ... on 3 April, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.21884 of 2022
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Srikrishna Ray ............. Petitioner
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others ........... Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.P.Pradhan,Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G.Mohanty, SC
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 17.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 03.04.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
praying for quashing the imposed condition in the permission for
sale granted in his favour under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960
on dated 21.06.2022 (Annexure 10) in OLR Case No.14 of 2020
and to allow the petitioner to sell his properties without any
condition only on the basis of as usual 10% increase of Bench
Mark Valuation.
2. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, he
(petitioner) belongs to Schedule Caste Community having his Sub
Caste Namasudra and he is the owner of the properties indicated
in the Annexure 10.
In order to meet the expenditures of his self-medical
treatments, he (petitioner) gave proposal for sale of his properties
indicated in the Annexure 10 to the local persons of S.C. and S.T.
Community first, but, nobody from the local S.C. and S.T.
community was interested to purchase the same. Thereafter,
without getting any way, he (petitioner) gave proposal for sale of
the same to the local general caste people, as he was in urgent
need of money for his self-medical treatments and one person
from the general caste community became interested to purchase
the same only after the grant of required permission under
Section 22 of the OLR Act.
3. For which, in order to sell the properties covered under
Annexure 10, he (petitioner) filed an application under Section 22
of the OLR Act vide OLR Case No.14 of 2020 before the
appropriate revenue authority i.e. before the Sub Collector,
Malkangiri (O.P. No.2) praying for granting him permission to sell
the said properties in favour of the general caste people.
4. After considering all the materials as per law, the Sub
Collector Malkangiri (O.P. No.2), as per order dated 21.06.2022
(Annexure 10) granted permission to sell the said properties in
favour of a person of general caste community imposing the
condition in Para No.4 of the said Annexure 10 that,
"sell through registered deed is allowed subject to
condition that, the applicant is required to
purchase equal area of land of any Kissam in
Malkangiri Registration District and the
registration of both the land should be made at a
time for the purpose of his medical treatments".
5. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid imposed condition
indicated in the order dated 21.06.2022 (Annexure 10)
passed/issued by the Sub Collector, Malkangiri (O.P. No.2), the
petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying
for quashing (setting aside) the above condition indicated in Para
No.4 of Annexure 10 as well as challenging the Bench Mark
Valuation indicated in the said Annexure 10 on the ground that,
when the Sub Collector, Malkangiri (O.P. No.2) granted
permission vide Annexure 10 to the petitioner for selling his
properties to a person other than S.C. and S.T. for his self-
medical treatments out of the consideration amounts thereof,
then, the above condition imposed in the said Annexure 10
directing him (petitioner) to purchase land equal to the area of
sold land on the same time has indirectly made such permission
invalid/infructuous. Because, the permission for sale was
granted by the O.P. No.2 in favour of the petitioner for no other
reason, but only, for his self-medical treatments out of the sold
money of the permitted properties, then, how it will be possible
on his part to purchase properties equal to the area of the sold
land at the same time, when, he (petitioner) has been
permitted/allowed for spending the consideration amounts for his
self-medical treatments. For which, the condition imposed in
Annexure 10 is liable to be quashed as well as the high Bench
Mark Valuation indicated in the Column No.6 of Annexure 10 is
also liable to be quashed.
6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State on behalf of
the Opposite Parties.
7. The crux of this writ petition is that,
"Whether the condition imposed in Annexure 10
i.e. to purchase equal area of sold land by the
petitioner at the same time is legally sustainable
under law?
8. When, it is forthcoming from the Annexure 10 that, the
main object of granting permission under Section 22 of the OLR
Act in OLR Case No.14 of 2020 by the O.P. No.2 in favour of the
petitioner for selling his properties covered therein was for his
self-medical treatments out of the sold money of the said
properties after being fully satisfied through due/proper enquiry
about the requirements of money by the petitioner for his self-
medical treatments, then at this juncture, the condition imposed
in the said Annexure 10 to purchase properties at the same time
by the petitioner equal to the areas of sold land cannot be
sustainable under law. Because, the above imposed condition in
the Annexure 10 has automatically become infructuous only for
the reasons that, when the main purpose/object of granting
permission for sale under Section 22 of the OLR Act in favour of
the petitioner as per Annexure 10 was for his self-medical
treatments and when he (petitioner) shall spend the consideration
amounts for his self-medical treatments, then, how it will be
possible on his part to purchase properties equal to the areas of
the sold land at the same time. For which, the above imposed
condition in Annexure 10 being self-contradictory, the same is
held as redundant.
9. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the Bench
Mark Valuation indicated in Column No.6 of Annexure 10 is
concerned, the valuation of the property for registration of a
particular plot depends upon the Bench Mark Valuation available
in the registration office at the time of registration. For which, the
question of giving any observation in respect of the Bench Mark
Valuation of the properties indicated in the Annexure 10 does not
arise. Because, the registration is to be made on the basis of the
Bench Mark Valuation available in the Sub Register's Office in its
official record at the time of registration of the sale deed for the
sold land in question.
10. As per the discussions and observations made above, there
is some merit in the writ petition of the petitioner, the same is to
be allowed in part.
11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in
part.
12. The condition imposed in Para No.4 of Annexure 10 by the
Sub Collector, Malkangiri (O.P. No.2) is quashed keeping the
other parts/portions of such permission (Annexure 10) for sale of
the properties indicated in the Annexure 10 intact/uninterferred.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
03.04.2025// Binayak Sahoo
Jr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
