Orissa High Court

*** vs State Of Odisha & Others on 14 November, 2025

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK




                   WP(C) No.13096 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
                            India.



                             ***

Bijaya Kumar Behera

... Petitioner.

-VERSUS-


     State of Odisha & Others

                                    ...           Opposite Parties.



Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner         : Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Tej Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel.

(For the State)

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 14.11.2025

J UDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

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.

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.

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).

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,

"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. 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.

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

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.

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.

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."

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the

State.

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

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.

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.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

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-

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

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.

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 non- scheduled 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.

5. In the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 vide Annexure-

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.

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.

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

in the impugned order passed by the Sub-Collector,

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.

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 Sub-

Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) learnt about the

same.

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.

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

conformity with the law, then, at this juncture, the writ

petition filed by the petitioner cannot be non-entertainable

under law.

The conclusion drawn above finds support from the

ratio of the following decision:

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.

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

and conjunctures using the words "it is learnt" without any

independent opinion on hearsay material i.e. on surmises

and conjunctures has already been clarified by the Apex

Court in the ratio of the following decision:

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

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 Sub-

Collector, Berhampur (Opp. Party No.3) under Section 22 of

the OLR Act, 1960 cannot be sustainable under law.

For which, there is justification under law for making

interference with the same through this writ petition filed by

the petitioner.