[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Unknown vs Collector on 15 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10338 of 2015
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Ramanimani Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
Collector, Mayurbhanj and .... Opposite Parties
others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak,
Learned Additional Standing
Counsel
Mr. M. Mohanty, Advocate
(For Opposite Party Nos.4 and
5)
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 16.12.2025 / date of judgment : 15.01.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
praying for quashing of the impugned order dated
24.06.2014(Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.05 of
2013 by the Additional District Magistrate,
Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) and the impugned order
dated 23.04.2015 (Annexure-4) passed in OLR (Revision)
Case No.02 of 2014 by the Collector, Mayurbhanj(Opposite
Party No.1).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which
prompted the petitioner for filing the same is that, the case
land originally belonged to the predecessors of the Opposite
Party Nos.4 and 5, i.e., Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu
Behera. The RoR of the case land was prepared in the name
of the aforesaid predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4
and 5.
The predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5,
i.e., Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu Behera as well as
Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 belong to Schedule Caste
community having their Sub-caste "Chamara".
The petitioner belongs to general caste community
having her Sub-caste "Kumbhara". The sale deeds vide RSD
No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and RSD No.4644 dated
11.11.1972 in respect of the case land was executed by the
predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, i.e.,
Bhagabata Behera and Sambhu Behera in favour of the
petitioner without obtaining any permission under Section
22 of the OLR Act, 1960 from the competent authority for
selling the said case land in favour of the petitioner. As the
aforesaid two sale deeds in respect of the case land were
executed by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4
and 5 in favour of the petitioner without obtaining any
permission from the competent authority for selling the
same, for which, the sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969
and the sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972(Annexure-1
series) are void. Therefore, the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5
filed a case vide OLR Case No.4 of 2012 under Section 23 of
the OLR Act before the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite
Party No.3) praying for restoration of possession of the case
land in their favour.
After hearing from both the sides, as per the final
order dated 28.05.2013(Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case
No.04 of 2012, the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party
No.3) dismissed to the OLR Case No.04 of 2012 under
Section 23 of the OLR Act, 1960 of the Opposite Party Nos.4
and 5 assigning the reasons that,
"the transferee of the case land, i.e., Opposite Partyin
OLR Case No.04 of 2012 (petitioner in this writ petition) has
been possessing the case land since the date of transfer and
she has not been dispossessed at any point of time till date
from the same. For which, she is found to be in possession
over the case land belonging to the member of S.C.
community for over 30 years. Therefore, her possession
through invalid deeds over the case land would be adverse
and when the prayer for restoration of possession of the case
land has been made by the petitioners in OLR Case No.04 of
2012 (Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition) after
30 years and when, in the instant case, the Opposite Party
(petitioner in this writ petition) has acquired title through
prescription by remaining in possession over the case land
for more than 30 years, then, the prayer of the petitioners for
restoration of the case land in their favour after expiry of 30
years deserves no consideration and accordingly, rejected to
the OLR Case No.04 of 2012 under Section 23 of the OLR Act
of the petitioners(Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ
petition)."
3. On being dissatisfied with the above impugned order
dated 28.05.2013(Annexure-2) passed in OLR Case No.04 of
2012 by the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3),
the petitioners thereof preferred an appeal vide OLR Appeal
No.05 of 2013 under Section 58 of the OLR Act, 1960 being
the appellants before the Additional District Magistrate,
Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) against the Opposite
Party vide OLR Case No.04 of 2012 arraying her as
respondent.
4. After hearing from both the sides, the Additional
District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2)
allowed that OLR Appeal No.05 of 2013 filed by the
appellants (Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition)
as per its final order dated 24.06.2014(Annexure-3) and set
aside to the impugned order dated 28.05.2013(Annexure-2)
passed by the Sub-collector, Kaptipada(Opposite Party No.3)
in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 and directed for restoration of
the case land in favour of the petitioners in OLR Appeal
No.05 of 2013 (Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ
petition) assigning the reasons that,
"Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960 came into force in the
State of Orissa w.e.f. 01.10.1965 and the sale deeds in
respect of the case land were executed in the year 1969 and
1972 respectively and when, after enforcement of the OLR
Act, without obtaining any permission from the competent
authority, the said sale deeds in respect of the case land vide
sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644
dated 11.11.1972 have been executed, then, the said sale
deeds are void. Therefore, the possession of the Opposite
Party in OLR Case No.04 of 2012 in respect of the case land
is illegal."
5. On being aggrieved with that impugned order dated
24.06.2014(Annexure-3) passed in OLR Appeal No.05 of
2013 by the Opposite Party No.2 against the Opposite
Parties in OLR Case No.04 of 2012, she(Opposite Party in
OLR Case No.04 of 2012) challenged the same by filing
revision vide OLR (Revision) No.02 of 2014 under Section
59(1) of the OLR Act, 1960 before the Collector,
Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.1) against the petitioners in
OLR Case No.04 of 2012 arraying them as Opposite Parties.
After hearing from both the sides, the Collector,
Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.1) dismissed to that OLR
(Revision) No.2 of 2014 of the Opposite Party in OLR Case
No.04 of 2012 as per its final order dated
23.04.2015(Annexure-4) and confirmed to the order dated
24.06.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate,
Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.2) in OLR Case No.05 of
2013 assigning the reasons that,
"The vendors in the sale deed No.1994 dated
06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972 belong
to schedule caste community having their Sub-caste
"Chamara" and the vendee of the said sale deeds(Opposite
Parties in OLR Case No.04 of 2012) belong to general caste
community having her Sub-caste "Kumbhara" and due to
lack of prior permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act,
1960 for selling the case land in favour of the vendee, the
said sale deeds are invalid. Because, the transfer of the case
land has been made in the year 1969 and 1972 much after
coming into force of Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960, i.e.,
after 01.10.1965. Therefore, the possession of the vendee
over the case land on the basis of the said sale deeds cannot
adverse against the vendors as well as their successors, i.e.,
the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition."
6. On being aggrieved with the said order dated
23.04.2015(Annexure-4) passed in OLR (revision) Case
No.02 of 2014 by the Collector, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party
No.1), the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 praying for quashing the impugned orders
dated 23.04.2015(Annexure-4) passed in OLR(Revision)
No.02 of 2014 by the Opposite Party No.1 and the
impugned order dated 24.06.2014(Annexure-3) passed in
OLR Appeal No.5 of 2013 by the Opposite Party No.2.
7. I have already heard from the leaned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.4
and 5.
8. In order to assail the impugned orders, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions
:-
(i) 1985(II) OLR-309
(ii) 2004(II) OLR(S.C.)-117
9. On the basis of the impugned orders vide Annexures-3
and 4 passed by the Additional District Magistrate,
Mayurbhanj and the Collector, Mayurbhanj, the rival
submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the
crux of this writ petition is as follows :-
(1) Whether, the Section 22 of the OLR Act,
1960 is applicable to the sale deeds dated
06.06.1969 and dated 11.11.1972 executed by the
predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in
favour of the petitioner and whether, due to lack
of permission from the competent authority under
Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960, the said sale
deeds are invalid under law?
(2) Whether, the possession of the
petitioner/vendee on the basis of the aforesaid
sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale
deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972(Annexure-1
series) over the case land is adverse against the
Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 and her possession
over the same has matured to title?
(3) Whether, the orders vide Annexures-3 and 4
passed by the Additional District Magistrate,
Mayurbhanj and the Collector, Mayurbhanj
setting aside the order dated 28.05.2013 passed
in OLR No.04 of 2012 by the Sub-collector,
Kaptipada are sustainable under law?
10. In order to ascertain the sustainability and
justifiability of the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4
passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the
Collector, Mayurbhanj, the above three points fixed for
determination are required to be discussed and analyzed
serially and chronologically one after another.
11. So far as 1st point whether, the Section 22 of the OLR
Act is applicable to the sale deeds dated 06.06.1969 and
dated 11.11.1972 executed by the predecessors of the
Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner and
whether due to lack of permission from the competent
authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960, the said
sale deeds are invalid under law is concerned;
The sale deed No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale
deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972 have been executed by the
predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 being the
persons of Schedule Caste community having their Sub-
caste "Chamara" in favour of the general caste person, i.e.,
petitioner having her Sub-caste "Kumbhara" without
obtaining any permission from the competent authority
under Section 22 of the OLR Act, 1960.
12. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, Section 22 of the OLR Act is not applicable
to the sale deeds dated 06.06.1969 and dated 11.11.1972,
as the Section 22 of the OLR Act was inserted into the
statute book of the OLR Act in the year 1974, i.e., much
after the execution of the above sale deeds in respect of the
case land in favour of the petitioner.
13. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner regarding inapplicability of Section 22 of the
OLR Act, 1960 to the sale deeds of the year 1969 and 1972
in respect of the case land is not acceptable under law.
Because, on this aspect, the propositions of law has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Chandramani Patel vrs.
Collector : reported in 1989(II) OLR-38 that, transfer, if
made prior to the Act come into force, i.e., prior to
01.10.1965, the transfer is not hit by Section 22 of the
OLR Act. In that case, the transfer is not invalid.
(ii) In a case between Laxmidhar Mahalik and
others vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in
2000(I) OLR-226 that, the sale deed dated 18.02.1969
being in contravention of the provisions contained in
Section 22 of the OLR Act was contrary to law and was
rightly declared to be invalid, because, transfer was
made by S.C. person in favour of the non-S.C. person.
(iii) In a case between Ramnaresh Singh vrs.
Padmalachan Jaypuria(Dead) and After Him Golap
Devi and others : reported in 76(1993) CLT-367 and in
a case between Karunakar Gond vrs. Pitabas Sahu,
reported in 1986(I) OLR-14 that, the aim and object of
Section 22 of the OLR Act is to safeguard the interest of
the weaker sections of the society and to improve their
conditions by providing that, any transfer except in
terms of provisions of Section 22 of the OLR Act would
be null and void. Because, the OLR Act being a
benevolent protective legislation, interpretation would be
liberal, so that, the object of legislation is fully satisfied
to use protective umbrella.
(iv) In a case between Baidhar Behera vrs. The
Special Officer, O.L.R., Central Division and others :
reported in 1990(I) OLR-369 that, transfer was made on
16.04.1968, the vendor made an application for
permission on 07.02.1968 and permission was given on
09.05.1968--Held the document is void and subsequent
permission cannot legalize such transfer.
(v) In a case between Purna Chandra Behera vrs.
Dibakar Behera and others : reported in 108(2009)
CLT-463--Transaction entered in contravention of
Section 22 of the OLR Act, the said transaction is void
ab initio. Non-observation of the said provisions attracts
dispossession and requires restoration of the properties
to the transferor or his legally assignee.
(vi) In a case between Satyabhama Dei vrs. Member
Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack and others :
reported in 2017(I) CLR-1054 that, permission for sale
applied on dated 28.02.1972, the sale deed executed on
03.03.1972 is invalid.
(vii) In a case between Sada Nanda Mohanta vrs.
Dusmanta Patra and others : reported in 2010(II)
CLR-851 that, registered sale deed in the year 1968
executed by a person belonged to "Patra Tanti" in favour
of non-schedule caste person, permission was
necessary. Sale deed admitting title and possession
executed neither prior to oral sale nor adverse
possession plea available.
(viii) In a case between Sada Nanda Mohanta vrs.
Dusmanta Patra and others : reported in 2010(2)
OJR-709 that, concurrent finding of fact not taking
prior permission of the competent authority to transfer
the land of Schedule Caste is not liable to be interfered
with.(Para-8)
14. In view of the propositions of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions, due to lack of permission
under Section 22 of the OLR Act for transferring the case
land by the predecessors of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5
in favour of the petitioner through sale deed No.1994 dated
06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated 11.11.1972, the
said deeds are void ab initio.
For which, the findings and observations made by the
Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 that, the said sale deeds dated
06.06.1969 and 11.11.1972 in respect of the case land in
favour of the petitioner are invalid cannot be held as
erroneous under law.
For which, the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner indicated in Para No.8 of this
judgment have become inapplicable to this matter at hand
for the reasons assigned above.
16. So far as the 2nd point, i.e., whether the possession of
the petitioner/vendee on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed
No.1994 dated 06.06.1969 and sale deed No.4644 dated
11.11.1972 over the case land is adverse against the
Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 and her possession over the
same has matured to title is concerned;
On this aspect, the following decisions are as follows:-
(i) In a case between Lincai Gamango vrs.
Dayanidhi Jena and others : reported in AIR 2004
S.C.-3457 that, adverse possession operates on an
alienable right. The title by adverse possession cannot
be claimed over the land, on which, alienation is
prohibited.
(ii) In a case between David Ledison alias Adison
Lima and others vrs. Addl. District Magistrate,
Rayagada and others : reported in 2005(I) CLR-6 that,
the petitioners, who are unauthorized and illegal
possession, cannot claim adverse possession.
17. When, it has already been held as per the discussions
and observations made in the afore-going point No.1 that,
the sale deeds in respect of the case land were of the year
1969 and 1972 and the said deeds are invalid and void ab
initio on the ground of execution of the same in
contravention of Section 22 of the OLR Act, i.e., without
permission, then, in view of the propositions of law
enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the claim
of the title of the petitioner over the case land through
adverse possession cannot be acceptable under law.
For which, the findings and observations made by the
Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in the impugned orders dated
24.06.2014 and 23.04.2015 vide Annexures-3 and 4
regarding the non-tenability of the claim of adverse
possession raised by the petitioner over the case land
cannot be held as erroneous.
17. So far as the 3rd and last point raised on behalf of the
petitioner whether, the orders vide Annexures-3 and 4
passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj
and the Collector, Mayurbhanj setting aside the order dated
28.05.2013 passed in OLR No.04 of 2012 by the Sub-
collector, Kaptipada are sustainable under law is
concerned,
When, as per the findings and observations made in
the afore-going point Nos.1 and 2, it has already been held
that, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to assail the impugned judgments vide
Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and
2 are not acceptable under law, then at this juncture, the
question of interfering with the same through this writ
petition filed by the petitioner does not arise.
18. As per the discussions and observations made above,
when it is held that, the impugned orders dated 24.06.2014
and 23.04.2015 vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate and the Collector,
Mayurbhanj are not interferable through this writ petition
filed by the petitioner, then at this juncture, this writ
petition filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed.
19. Therefore, it is held that, there is no merit in this writ
petition filed by the petitioner. The same must fail.
20. In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
dismissed on contest.
21. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 15th of January, 2026/
Binayak Sahoo, Jr. Steno
&
Rati Nayak, Sr. Steno.
