Om Prakash Agarwal & Ors Vs. Batara
Behera & Ors [1999] INSC 58 (10 March 1999)
G.B.Pattanaik,
M.B.Shah PATTANAIK,J.
This
appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.7.85 of the Orissa High Court whereunder
the High Court has come to the conclusion that the agricultural lands even
within the municipal area will come under the purview of the Orissa Land
Reforms Act. The disputed land measuring 2.133 acres is situated on periphery
of Cuttack Town and the said land was sold by a Registered Sale Deed dated
24.6.1966, in favour of non-scheduled caste persons by persons alleged to be
belonging to Scheduled Caste. Respondent no.1 who is a co-sharer of the vendors
of the aforesaid Sale Deed filed a Petition invoking the jurisdiction of the
Revenue Officer under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'The Act') alleging therein that the transfer in question being
in contravention of Sub-Section (1) of Section 22 is void and, therefore, the
vendor should be put back in possession. The said Revenue Officer held the
necessary enquiry under Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 and by order dated
28.2.83 declared the sale to be invalid. While coming to the aforesaid
conclusion the Revenue Officer rejected the contention that the vendors are not
Scheduled Caste persons and also recorded the finding that the lands in
question could be governed by Orissa Land Reforms Act notwithstanding the fact
that the land is situated within the municipal limits of the Cuttack Town. The aforesaid order of the Revenue Officer was assailed in
appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, but the appeal was dismissed by
order dated 7.6.83. The matter was then carried in revision to Special Officer
Land Reforms, Cuttack, and the said Special Officer allowed
the Revision by order dated 31.12.1983 on a conclusion that Land Reforms Act
does not apply to urban land. Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition assailing
the aforesaid order of the Special Officer Land Reforms, Cuttack and by the
impugned judgment dated 4.7.85 the High Court after analysing different
provisions of the Act, more particularly, the definition of 'Land' in Section 2
(14) of the Act came to the conclusion that the situation of the land within
the urban area is not a relevant consideration to determine whether the
particular land comes within the purview of the Land Reforms Act or not. But
since no evidence had been lead by the parties to indicate whether the disputed
land comes within the definition of 'Land' under Section 2 (14) of the Act the
High Court remitted the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh disposal
after giving opportunities to both parties to lead evidence, if they are so
advised. It is this order of the Orissa High Court which is being challenged in
this appeal.
Mr.
G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended
that the very purpose of the Orissa Land Reforms Act being a progressive
legislation relating to agrarian and land tenures, the said Act cannot have any
application to the land which is a part of the master plan of a City and,
therefore, the High Court committed error in applying the provisions of the
Land Reforms Act to the case in hand. Mr. Sanghi further contended that in the
absence of any materials to indicate that the vendors of the sale deeds belong
to the Scheduled Castes the embargo contained under Section 22 of the Act will
not apply and, therefore, the application under Section 23 of the Act was not
tenable. Mr. Sanghi also submitted that in view of Section 73(c) of the Land
Reforms Act and in view of the fact that the area comes within a master plan
thereby necessarily reserved as an urban area the Act cannot have any
application. The learned senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand
contended, that the definition of 'Land' in Section 2(14) is wide enough to
include the lands within the municipal area provided the same is used for
agricultural purposes or is capable of being used for agricultural purposes and
in that view of the matter the High Court rightly remitted the matter to the
Sub-Divisional Officer for re-consideration.
In
view of the rival submissions at the Bar the first question that arises for
consideration is whether the land as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act and
which is either being used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes
within the municipal area do come under the purview of Orissa Land Reforms Act.
The Act, no doubt is a measure relating to agrarian reforms and land tenures
and abolition of intermediary interest but there is no provision in the Act
which excludes such agricultural lands merely because they are situated in an
Urban Agglomerations. The Act applies to all land which is either used or
capable of being used for agricultural purposes irrespective of whether it is
situated within a municipal area or in villages. The very object of the
legislation being an agrarian reform, the object will be frustrated if
agricultural lands within the municipal area are excluded from the purview of
the Act. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that the Act applies to all lands which is used or capable of being
used for agricultural purposes irrespective of the fact wherever the said land
is situated and the conclusion of the High Court on this score is unassailable.
The first submission of Mr. Sanghi is, therefore, devoid of any force. So far
as the question that the vendors do not belong to the Scheduled Castes it
appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of materials produced
before him came to a positive conclusion that the vendors of the sale deeds
belong to Scheduled Castes which is confirmed by the record of right. This
conclusion of the Sub-Divisional Officer had not been assailed before the
Appellate Authority, as is apparent from paragraph 2 of the Appellate judgment.
Since the finding of the Sub- Divisional Officer on the question whether the
vendors of the sale deeds belong to Schedule Castes or not had not been
assailed before the Appellate Authority, the said finding has become final and
cannot be permitted to be re-agitated again. Rightly, therefore, the High Court
did not consider the said question and in our considered opinion, that question
cannot be re-opened now. So far as the third submission of Mr. Sanghi is
concerned, we do not have an iota of material on record to establish that the
area in question has been reserved for urbanisation by a notification issued in
the Official Gazette of the Government within the ambit of Section 73(c) of the
Act so that the Act cannot have any application. In the absence of such
material it is difficult for us to sustain the said submission of Mr. Sanghi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.
In the
premises, as aforesaid, all the submissions having been failed the appeal fails
and is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Back