WP(C)/8612/2003 of SURU ANURADHA Vs BIDIKI DINABANDHU on 3 September 2026

JUDGMENT

03.09.2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of order dated 06.06.2003 passed by the Collector, Rayagada in OSATIP Review Petition

No. 279 of 2001, whereby the permission granted to the petitioner’s vendors for sale of the property under Regulation 2 of 1956 was set aside.

2. Be it noted that this Court originally disposed of the writ application by order passed on 15.09.2022. However, the legal heirs of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 having preferred writ appeal being W.A. No. 1683 of 2022, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside by judgment dated 23.03.2026 with a direction to hear the writ application afresh. The writ application was thus heard again in presence of the parties.

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the land in question belonged to one Bidika Jaguli measuring Ac. 16.07 decimals in Mouza-Seriguda of Boudh district. Upon his death, his sons, namely, Bidika Dinabandhu, Bidika Jagili and Bidika Sriramulu inherited and succeeded to the property. The property was thereafter recorded in a joint khata. The recorded owners belong to Scheduled Tribes. With the intention of selling the property to meet their legal necessities, the vendors applied for permission under Section 3(1) of Regulation 2 of 1956 on 18.07.1995 before the competent authority which was registered as OSATIP Case No. 46 of 1995. The competent authority, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced, granted permission by order dated 14.09.1995 to sell their land by 30.11.1995. On 06.10.1995, the vendors sold the land to the petitioner by executing a registered sale deed upon receipt of consideration at the rate fixed by the competent authority i.e. Rs. 45,000/- per acre.

4. Regulation 2 of 1956 was subsequently amended by Amending Regulation No. 1/1997 to insert Regulation 3-a (i) empowering the Collector to revise any order passed under Regulation-3(1) or 3(2) of Regulation-2 of 1956 granting permission to such land by scheduled tribe to non-schedule tribe person within a period of 5 years suo motu or otherwise. The Collector initiated a suo motu review petition bearing No. 279 of 2001 on 14.12.2001 under the amended regulation. By order dated 06.06.2003, the Collector allowed the review petition and set aside the permission granted earlier. Said order is impugned in the present writ application, which has been filed seeking the following relief: “The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue notice to the opposite parties and upon hearing parties quash the order as per annexure- 4 passed by the Collector in OSATIP Case No.188/2001, declaring the permission granted to the petitioner as per annexure 3 to be void and directing restoration of land And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5. Though the Opposite Parties entered appearance they did not filed any counter affidavit.

6. Heard Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior counsel with Mr. B.K. Mohanty for the petitioners, Ms. J. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Parties.

7. Mr. Rao, learned Senior counsel would argue that the impugned order has been passed in a proceeding which is entirely without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order granting permission to the vendors of the petitioner to sell the land was passed on 14.09.1995 and as per the amended provision, the same could have been revised only within a period of five years. The present review petition was initiated on 14.12.2001 which is six years after the order granting permission and is therefore, not sustainable. On merits, it is submitted by Mr. Rao that the original order granting permission was passed on proper appreciation of facts, evidence and materials on record. The Collector, however held that the order was wrongly passed on purely irrelevant and untenable grounds. The question of fraud was neither raised nor proved by any person. In fact, there was no complaint with regard to the completed sale transaction for as long as six years. Mr. Rao further submits that even otherwise, the Collector adopted a procedure unknown to law inasmuch as the vendor was examined in the absence of vendee and thereafter, notice was issued to the vendee. As such, he never got a chance to cross-examine the vendor. Mr. Rao concludes his argument by submitting that the vendors never complained of any foul play having occurred but some of the legal heirs have come forward to take undue advantage by reversing a validly concluded transaction long back.

8. Mrs. J.Sahoo, learned State counsel submits that the Collector has the power to initiate a suo motu revision within five years from the date of grant of permission. However, the amended Regulation-3-a, which was inserted by the amending Regulation No. 1 of 1997 was published in official gazette on 27.03.1997. The amended provision must therefore, be deemed to have to come into force from the aforesaid date. Such being the case, the suo motu review having been initiated on 14.12.2001 is well within the prescribed period and therefore, maintainable.

9. Mr. Mishra further submits that the power so conferred is wide enough to include even an order passed prior to coming into force of the amendment, though the amendment itself is prospective in nature as per judgments passed by this Court in several cases, particularly the case of Jami Ramesh and another vrs. State of Odisha, 2019 (II) OLR 94. Mr. Mishra further submits that the original order granting permission was passed without proper notice to the applicant and the general public and contains several flaws such as non- signing of the order, failure to inform the Welfare Department of Odisha. For such reason, the Collector rightly decided to interfere with the order. It is further submitted that there is discrepancy with regard to the person who was to get married for which the sale of land was necessitated. It is further submitted that after death of the recorded owners, their legal heirs being the private Opposite Parties are in possession of the suit property.

10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on consideration of the contentions raised, it is evident that the first point that arises for determination is, whether the amended Regulation of 1997 would apply to the order of permission granted prior to such amendment.

To answer this, this Court again takes note of the relevant dates. The order of permission was passed by the competent authority on 14.09.1995. The Collector, purportedly exercising power conferred by Regulation 3-a(i) initiated suo motu review on 14.12.2001. This Court is not inclined to enter into the question of the date of coming into force of the above amended Regulation as in its considered view, the same is not relevant. It has been forcefully argued on behalf of the private Opposite Parties, and not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner, that the amendment is prospective in nature. The judgment passed by a division Bench of this Court in the case Jami Ramesh (supra) has been cited. It may be noted that in Jami Ramesh (supra), the division Bench was considering the applicability of Section 3-B of the amended Regulation whereas the present case involves applicability of amending Regulation of 1997. Reading of the judgment reveals that the division Bench took note of several judgments passed by the Supreme Court and held that any amendment made to the Act (Regulation) shall have prospective effect unless it is expressly provided or any necessary implications makes it retrospective. It would be proper to refer to Paragraph-12 of the Judgment: “12. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the amendment which is brought into as Section 3(B) of the Amendment Regulation, 2000, cannot have a retro-spective effect and as such, the same will have a prospective effect. It will be applied to the transactions made on or after the date of publication i.e. 04.09.2002 and the transaction which took place prior thereto, will not be affected, in any manner by the provisions of Amendment Regulation, 2000.”

(Emphasis added)

The same analogy can be drawn to the present case inasmuch as the amended Regulation came into force from the date of its publication in the official gazette on 27.03.1997. At this stage, it would also be apposite to reproduce to the amended provision below: “3(a) (i) Any order passed by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) may, within a period of five years from the date of the order, be revised, either on own motion otherwise. by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner if the order was passed by Collector and by the Collector if it was passed by any other competent authority, after or giving the parties concerned a opportunity of being heard: reasonable Provided that no order shall be revised under this sub-section if an appeal against such order has been entertained under sub-section (3).”

11. In view of the settled position of law as discussed above, the expression ‘any order’ used in the provision can only mean an order passed post the amendment and not the ones passed prior to it. Any contrary interpretation would lead to absurd conclusions. To amplify, if the amendment as a whole is held to be prospective w.e.f. 27.03.1997, the expression ‘any order’ cannot obviously relate to orders passed prior to the said date, but what the learned counsel for the private Opposite Parties has argued essentially means that, while the amended regulation is itself prospective, the expression ‘any order’ occurring therein is retrospective. This interpretation cannot be countenanced in law.

12. Another aspect that needs mention is that even otherwise, the amended Regulation confers on the concerned authority the power of revision and not review. There is an essential distinction between revision and review. The regulation does not define the terms, revision and review.

Plainly understood, the essential distinction between the two is that the review is a power vested in the same Court which passed the order, whereas, the power of revision is to be exercised by the higher forum. Reading of order dated

14.12.2001 passed by the Collector in OSATIP Review Case No. 279 of 2001 reveals that the Officer in Special Duty (Land Reforms) Rayagada granted the order of permission in case No. 46 of 1994. The Collector inter alia passed the following order: “This is a case u/s (3-a) (i) of OSATIP amendment Regulation of 1996.According to the same, permissions granted u/s 3(i) by the competent authority can be reviewed by the Collector within five years from the date of order of the permission. It is seen that the Officer on Special duty (Land Reforms), Rayagada in Case No. 46 of 1995 vide order No. 230 dated 16.09.1995 has permitted the vendor to sell land u/s 3(i) of Reg. 2 of 56. Xxx xxx xxxx It is proposed to review the case suo-motu xxx xxx xxx”

(Emphasis added)

The Collector being the higher authority must therefore, be deemed to have executed powers of revision though wrongly described as review.

13. However, in view of the discussion made earlier, the Collector had no jurisdiction whatsoever to reopen an order granting permission prior to 27.03.1997 in the garb of exercising power of review (or revision) under Regulation-3-a

(i) . On such count alone, the impugned order is rendered unsustainable in the eye of law and deserves interference.

14. Having held so, it is not necessary to enter into the correctness or otherwise of the said order, which, incidentally has never been questioned by any party, much less the vendors for all these years.

15. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

……..…………………..

Sashikanta Mishra,

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

Dt. 3rd September, 2026/ Deepak

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2026 11:37:25 Signature Not Verified