Khirod Rout v. Bhakta Charan Meher And Ors., Orissa High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

These Writ Petitions arise from a common order passed by the Collector, Sundargarh, in Revision Case Nos. 3 & 4 of 1991, which affirmed the Appellate order by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh, dismissing OLR Appeal No. 06 of 1990 filed by the Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest and allowing Appeal No. 04 of 1990 filed by Opposite Party No. 1. The original dispute concerned a sale deed dated 15.12.1978 under which Samaru Pandey sold disputed plots to Opposite Party No. 1. The sale was challenged by Indu Pandey and her father Samaru Pandey under Section 23 of the Odisha Land Reforms (OLR) Act, on the ground that the sale occurred without the requisite permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act, as they claimed to belong to the Scheduled Caste 'Keuta' caste under the Presidential Order for Orissa.

The Sub-Collector initially allowed restoration of possession to the Petitioner's predecessor for certain disputed plots, concluding the sale was effected prior to the inclusion of the 'Keuta' caste in the Presidential Order. However, the Additional District Magistrate reversed this, holding that 'Keuta' was not synonymous with or a sub-caste of 'Dewar', which was included in the Presidential Order, and set aside the Sub-Collector's order. The Collector, in revision, confirmed the Appellate order, dismissing the revisions filed by Indu Pandey. During proceedings, the death of Samaru Pandey and later Indu Pandey led to substitution of parties.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the caste 'Keuta' qualifies as a Scheduled Caste under the Presidential Order for the State of Orissa at the time of the sale in 1978.

Whether the sale deed executed without permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act is void or invalid if the vendor’s caste was not included as a Scheduled Caste at the time of sale.

Whether the earlier judicial approach allowing enquiry into whether a caste not listed in the Presidential Order is synonymous or a sub-caste of a Scheduled Caste remains good law.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
OJC No. 247 of 1978: 49(1980) CLT 47: Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa	Consideration of whether a caste not explicitly listed in the Presidential Order can be treated as synonymous or a sub-caste of a listed Scheduled Caste.	The authorities relied on this decision to assess if 'Keuta' is synonymous with 'Dewar', but the court found this decision no longer good law.
AIR 2001 (SC) 393: State of Maharashtra v. Milind & others	A caste not specifically included in the Presidential Order cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste or Tribe; enquiry into sub-caste or synonymous status is impermissible.	The court applied this binding precedent to hold that 'Keuta' caste, not listed in the Presidential Order, cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste, rendering the sale valid without permission.
82 (1996) CLT 155: Rama Chandra Sahoo v. Collector, Mayurbhanj & others	Support for the principle that only castes specifically included in the Presidential Order are Scheduled Castes.	The court cited this decision to reinforce the current legal position rejecting enquiry into synonymous or sub-caste status for Scheduled Caste classification.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

OJC No. 247 of 1978: 49(1980) CLT 47: Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa

Consideration of whether a caste not explicitly listed in the Presidential Order can be treated as synonymous or a sub-caste of a listed Scheduled Caste.

The authorities relied on this decision to assess if 'Keuta' is synonymous with 'Dewar', but the court found this decision no longer good law.

AIR 2001 (SC) 393: State of Maharashtra v. Milind & others

A caste not specifically included in the Presidential Order cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste or Tribe; enquiry into sub-caste or synonymous status is impermissible.

The court applied this binding precedent to hold that 'Keuta' caste, not listed in the Presidential Order, cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste, rendering the sale valid without permission.

82 (1996) CLT 155: Rama Chandra Sahoo v. Collector, Mayurbhanj & others

Support for the principle that only castes specifically included in the Presidential Order are Scheduled Castes.

The court cited this decision to reinforce the current legal position rejecting enquiry into synonymous or sub-caste status for Scheduled Caste classification.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the classification of the 'Keuta' caste in relation to the Scheduled Caste Presidential Order for Orissa at the time of the sale in 1978. Initially, the Sub-Collector allowed restoration on the ground that the sale took place before 'Keuta' was included as Scheduled Caste. The Additional District Magistrate reversed this by holding that 'Keuta' was not synonymous or a sub-caste of 'Dewar', a Scheduled Caste. The Collector upheld this view on revision.

The court noted that the earlier decision relied upon by the authorities (Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa) permitting enquiry into synonymous or sub-caste status is no longer good law. The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Milind & others established that a caste not specifically included in the Presidential Order cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste or Tribe, and enquiry into synonymous or sub-caste status is impermissible. This principle was further supported by decisions of this Court, including Rama Chandra Sahoo v. Collector, Mayurbhanj.

Since 'Keuta' was not included in the Presidential Order on the date of sale, permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act was not required, and the sale deed cannot be declared void or invalid on that ground. Consequently, the impugned orders dismissing the restoration claims were held to be correct.

Holding and Implications

The Writ Petitions are dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is the validation of the sale deed executed in favour of Opposite Party No. 1 without the need for permission under Section 22 of the OLR Act, as the vendor's caste was not a Scheduled Caste at the time of sale. No new legal precedent was set; rather, the court applied established Supreme Court and High Court precedents to affirm the correctness of the impugned orders.

Khirod Rout v. Bhakta Charan Meher And Ors.

B.K. Nayak, J.:-

1. Both these Writ Petitions arise out of the common order passed by the Collector, Sundargarh in Revision Case Nos. 3 & 4 of 1991 affirming the common Appellate order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh in OLR Appeal Nos. 4 & 6 of 1990 whereby the Additional District Magistrate dismissed OLR Appeal No. 06 of 1990 filed by the present Petitioner's predecessor-in-interest & allowed Appeal No. 04 of 1990 filed by present Opp. Party No. 1 & set aside the order passed by the OSD (LR), Sundargarh in Misc. Case No. 05 of 1987 under section 23 of the olr act (in short 'the OLR Act'.) Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are heard analogously & disposed of by this common order. The predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioner, namely, Indu Pandey & her father, Samaru Pandey filed an application before the Officer-on-Special Duty, Sundargarh under Section23 of the OLR Act giving rise to registration of Misc. Case No. 5 of 1987 for declaring the sale deed void under which Samaru Pandey had sold the disputed properties under eleven numbers of plots to Opp. Party No. 1 & for restoration of possession of the same, on the ground that the sale was without permission of the competent authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act. The registered sale deed in respect of the land was executed on 15.12.1978. The claim of the Petitioner was that they belonged to 'Keuta' caste which is a Scheduled Caste within the Presidential Order for the State of Orissa. So far as the disputed plot No. 378 is concerned, the sale was Ac.1.50 out of a total area Ac.1.99 of the said plot. Though by his final Order Dated 23.5.1990 (Annexure-3), the Sub-Collector came to conclusion that the sale was effected prior to the inclusion of 'Keuta' caste in the Presidential Order, he allowed the petition & directed for restoration of the disputed property in favour of the Petitioner's predecessor, Indu Pandey. So far as Plot No. 308 is concerned, the Sub-Collector allowed only restoration of Ac.0.49 dec. as against the claim of Ac.1.50 decimals.

2. Aggrieved by the order for partial restoration in respect of plot No. 308, Indu Pandey filed Appeal No. 6 of 1990, whereas Opp. Party No. 1 challenged the whole order of restoration by filing Appeal No. 4 of 1990 before the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh. Both the appeals were heard & disposed of by common Order Dated 25.04.1991 under Annexure-2 holding that the vendor of Opp. Party No. 1 was not a Scheduled Caste as the caste 'Keuta' does not come within the caste 'Dewar' which was included in the Presidential Order. Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate allowed Appeal No. 4 of 1990 & dismissed Appeal No. 6 of 1990 & set aside the order passed by the Sub-Collector.

3. Being aggrieved by the common Appellate order Indu Pandey filed two revisions bearing Revision Case Nos. 3 & 4 of 1991 before the Collector, Sundargarh. The revisional authority confirmed the Appellate order & dismissed both the revisions which have been assailed in the present two writ applications.

4. Samaru Pandey, father of Indu Pandey having died during pendency of the original proceeding before the Sub-Collector & he having no other legal heir except Indu Pandey, his name was deleted. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, Indu Pandey, the original Petitioner having died she has been substituted by one Khiord Rout, son of Pyari Rout.

5. Admittedly Samaru Pandey, the vendor of the present Opp. Party No. 1 belonged to 'Keuta' caste. It is also undisputed position that on the date of the sale the caste 'Keuta' was not included in the Presidential Order as a Scheduled Caste for the State of Orissa. Relying on a decision of this Court in OJC No. 247 of 1978: 49(1980) CLT 47 :Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa, the authorities went to consider whether the caste 'Keuta' can be considered to be synonymous to or a sub-caste of the caste 'Dewar' which was included in the Presidential Order as Scheduled Caste for the State & on assessment of the evidence they came to hold that the vendor's caste was not synonymous to or a sub-caste of the caste 'Dewar' &, therefore, he was not a scheduled caste.

6. The decision on which the authorities relied upon is no more good law today inasmuch as it is now well settled in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 (SC) 393: State of Maharashtra v. Milind & others & similar other decisions to the effect that a caste which is not specifically included in the Presidential Order cannot be treated to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe & no enquiry with regard to the question whether such caste is synonymous to or a sub- caste or a branch of any other caste, named as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order is permissible. Similar view has also been expressed by this Court in several decisions including Rama Chandra Sahoo v. Collector, Mayurbhanj & others: 82 (1996) CLT 155. In view of the undisputed position that caste 'Keuta' was not included in the Scheduled Caste Presidential Order for the State of Orissa on the date of the sale made in favour of Opp. Party No. 1 permission for such sale under Section 22 of the OLR Act was not necessary. Therefore, the sale cannot be said to be void or invalid for want of such permission. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders & accordingly the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

________

Khirod Rout v. Bhakta Charan Meher And Ors.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Khirod Rout v. Bhakta Charan Meher And Ors.

Comments