IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK

(Original Jurisdiction Case)

W.P.(C) No. __________________ of 2017

IN THE MATTER OF: An application under Article 226 and

227 of The Constitution of India.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: An application against the order for

refusing the registered Sale Deed.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rajendra Oram, aged about 50 years, son of Late Maghu Oram

...........................PETITIONER

Versus

1. Addl. District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar,

Sambalpur, At/PO and District

Sambalpur

2. Registering Officer, Sambalpur, At/PO and District

Sambalpur
 The matter out of which the present
petition incidentally connected with
W.P.(C) No. 13763 of 2017 disposed
of on 13.07.2017.

To

The Hon’ble Shri K.S. Jhaveri, B.Sc., LL.B.,

the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, and

His Lordship’s other Companion Justices of the said

Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition of the

petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That, in this writ petition, the present petitioner prayed for

issue of a writ in nature of mandamus/ certiorari and/or
any other appropriate writ/writs or order/orders and/or
direction should not be passed to register the sale deed
presented for registration.
2. That, the petitioner is the resident of Panikapada in the
district of Sambalpur within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble court. Further the cause of action for the
present writ petition arose with the jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble Court.
3. That, the petitioner is the registered tenant with respect
to the land standing over an area vide Major Settlement
khatta no. 567/1807 of Ac. 0.001 decimal of plot no.
589/6021, Ac. 0.009 decimal of plot no. 591/6020 and Ac.
0.030 of plot no. 592 of Kissam, Gharabari II i.e. having
total area of Ac. 0.040 decimal or 1722 Sq. Ft. The
petitioner has purchased the said purchased the said
property from one Rajendra Oram son of Late Maghu
Oram under a Registered deed of Sale vide RSD No. 8841
of 20.07.2019. Copy of ROR is annexed as ANNEXURE 1.
4. That it is humbly submitted that, the petitioner is in need
of urgent money for her legal necessity and decided to
sale the property under Annexure-1. Accordingly Niranjan
Kishor Das approached the petitioner for sale of said
property. The petitioner agreed to sale the land to said
buyer and directed her lawyer to prepare a sale deed for
transfer of the land.
5. That, it is further submitted that the petitioner belongs to
schedule Tribe caste and the purchaser belongs to Non
Schedule tribe Caste. The land is situated within the
Sambalpur Municipality Corporation i.e., urban area.
Further, the village Baraipali has been notified to be urban
area vide Orissa Gazette dated July 14th, 1972. As per the
Section 73-C of the Orissa Land Reform Act, same is
exempted from the preview of OLR Act. Hence, no
permission under section 22 of the OLR Act is necessary.
Copy of the notification is annexed as ANNEXURE-2.
6. That, accordingly, the lawyer of the petitioner prepared
the sale deed and presented for registration on
22.07.2019. initially the Registering authority accepted
the documents. But later on the Registering authority vide
its order dated 20.07.2019 refused to register the same
and returned the sale deed. Copy of the order dtd.
20.07.2019 is annexed as ANNEXURE-3.
7. That, while refusing to register the document, the
registering authority observed that a witness permission
of the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Sambalpur is required u/s 22
of the OLR Act as the transfer is by a Schedule Tribe in
favour of Non Schedule Tribe. Further, it is observed that
there is no exception in this section for transfer of urban
land by a Schedule Tribe in favour of Non Schedule Tribe.
Besides as to applicability of the provision of section 22 of
OLR act, for homestead land of Urban are permission are
being accorded from the Revenue Officers from time to
time.
8. That, it is humbly submitted that, as per Section 22 (4)
OLR Act, any transfer of holding or part thereof a raiyat
belonging to a Schedule Tribe shall void without
permission by the Revenue Authority. Whereas under
section 73(C) of the said Ac clearly stated that the act is
not applicable to any area which the Government may
from time to time notified in the official gazette specify as
being reserved for urban, non-agricultural or industrial
development or any other specific purpose. Here the land
 and building in question is of Gharabari-II kissam and
situated within the territory of the Sambalpur Municipality
Corporation. Neither the land in question nor the house
standing thereon is/are being used for purpose of
agriculture or ancillary to agriculture. Hence, the property
in question is exempted from application of OLR Act.
9. That, this Hon'ble Court in case of Mahurilal Agarwal vs
Dusaasan Sahu (Vol.43 (1977) CLT, 61), Sri Bhanuganga
Tribhuban Deb Vs Tahsildar-cum-Revenue Officer,
Sambalpur (53(1982)CL T-1) and Smt. Madanbati Labh
vs. S.D.O., Sadar, Sambalpur (71(1991) CLT 390), and in
the case of Laxmirani Kachyap Vs Stat (W.P.(C) No.
18171 of 2016) this Hon'ble Court have observed that
Section 22 is applicable to a land used or capable of being
used for agricultural purpose or homestead or ordinarily
used as house site, ancillary or incidental to agricultural.
Unless the disputed land comes within the definition of
“homestead” or “land” as defined the clause (12) and
(14), section 22 would not be attracted.

10. That, the property in question is a plot and the

Kissam of the land is Gharbari II. The said property is
either being used for agricultural purpose or was a land
ordinarily used as a house-site, ancillary or incidental to
agriculture. The order passed under ANNEXURE-4 is an
error in jurisdictional fact. Any application under section
22 seeking permission is not binding the transferee.
11.  That, on an earlier occasion the petitioner has
approached this Hon'ble Court vide W.P.(C) No.13763 of
2017 dispose of on 13.07.2017 with the following orders:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the
petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal as against
the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to interfere
in the impugned order at this stage, but however,
considering the request of learned counsel for the
petitioners, this Court permits the petitioners to file
appeal as against the impugned order within seven days
hence.  Months thereafter but however, giving opportunity
of hearing to all the parties concerned. It is also open to
the petitioners to take help of the judgment of this court
passed in W.P. (C) No. 18171 of 2016 in the appeal.
Writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction.
Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.
Sd/- B. Ratha.J
12. That in view of the direction passed by the past, the
present petitioner couldn’t file any appeal to the order as
Sambalpur court on cease war.
13. That, finding no other alternative, the petitioner
approached this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India for speedy and effective
remedy of his grievance.
 PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may

graciously be pleased to:-
ISSUE RULE NISI calling upon the OPPOSITE PARTIES to
show cause as to why an appropriate writ in nature of
certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate
writ/writs or orders and/or direction should not be passed
to register the sale deed presented for registration by
setting aside by order under Annexure-3.

If the OPPOSITE PARTIES fail to show cause or show

inadequate or false cause, make the aforesaid rule nisi
absolute.

And/or order/orders and the Hon'ble Court may deem just

and proper and in order to provide the Petitioner complete
relief.

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty

bound ever pray.

By the Petitioner through

Advocate