Judgment:
Nanavati, C.J.
1. Petitioner No. 1, either individually or along with the other two petitioners, purchased certain lands of village Suktapali from different persons between the years 1967 and 1978. During the consolidation proceedings in respect of that area, the petitioners applied under Section 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter, 'the Act') for recording their names in the relevant records on the strength of the said purchases. These applications were registered as Objection Cases Nos. 772/102, 1056/887 and 1050/390. The Consolidation Officer disallowed the claims of the petitioners on the ground that the sales in their favour were void in view of Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the O. L. R. Act') and disposed of those Objection Cases accordingly. The petitioners, instead of filing appeals against those orders, filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. Those applications were registered as Objection Cases Nos. 320/150, 724/54, 877/ 208, 926/257 and 1001/332. The Consolidation Officer dismissed those objection cases also on the ground that the sales were void and also on the ground that the earlier applications under Section 9(3) of the Act were rejected. All these orders, Annexures 1 to 7, are challenged in this petition.
2. When this petition was placed earlier before the Division Bench for hearing, it was, inter alia, contended that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to decide that the transactions of sale were void as they contravened the provisions of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act and therefore, the orders passed by him should be regarded as illegal and bad. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Labanga Debeta v. State of Orissa, (O. J. C. No. 2566 of 1984 decided on 10-8-1990). The Division Bench doubted the correctness of the decision given in that case and it was of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. For that reason, this petition is now placed before this larger Bench for deciding whether the view taken in Labanga Debata's case that a transaction in contravention of Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act does not become ipso facto void until a proceeding is initiated under Section 23 and validity of the transaction is determined by the designated Revenue Officer is correct or not.
3. We will therefore, examine what led this court to take that view in the case of Labanga Debata. The reasons given by the Court for taking that view are as under:--
'......The consolidation authorities are not the designated functionaries under the O.L.R. Act to decide the question regarding the invalidity of the sale deeds since Section 23 of the O.L.R, Act in the provision to implement the provisions of Section 22 of that Act. Once an enquiry is taken up under the provisions of Section 23 of the O. L. R. Act, it will be possible for the purchasers to defend a transaction on various grounds. They may contend that the transactions were not between the prohibited categories of persons or that the transactions were with the permission of the authorities or that though the transactions were made in contravention of Section 22, yet the title has been perfected through adverse possession. Hence without a proceeding before the designated forum, such questions cannot be decided by the consolidation authorities.'
4. In substance, the reason which appealed to that division Bench for holding why the consolidation authorities cannot decide on their own that the transaction is void was that prior adjudication in that behalf by a Revenue Officer is necessary. The necessity for prior adjudication was felt in order to protect lawful purchases and also because of the provision made in Section 23 of the O. L. R. Act for an inquiry. If we read Sections 22 and 23 of the O. L. R. Act more closely, it becomes clear that Section 23 is not a provision for implementation of Section 22 as understood by the Division Bench.
O. L. R. Act is a piece of legislation relating to agrarian reforms. It also aims at social and economic upliftment of the tenants and holders of lands who belong to weaker sections of the society. With a view to achieve the objects of the legislation, the legislature has provided that any transfer of holding or part thereof even by a riayat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void if it is not in favour of a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. In order to protect a riayat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe from exploitation, either because of his illiteracy or poor economic condition, the legislature has placed the restriction on his right to alienate his holding and prohibited sale in favour of a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe except with the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer. In order to see that the object of the provision is not frustrated, the legislature has further declared that the transfer made in contravention of Section 22 shall be void. Therefore, it can be said without any doubt that the legislature intended such a transfer to be void, i.e., of no legal effect. The word 'void' appears to have been used in its true technical sense, to mean a nullity, incapable of confirmation or ratification. Therefore, the transfer made in contravention of Section 22 has to be regarded as a transfer having no existence in the eye of law right from the beginning and which does not require any adjudication to that effect. Only (thing) that the authority before which it is produced has to consider is whether it is made in contravention of Section 22 or not. Before that authority, a claim that the transferee acted bona fide or that he has become owner by adverse possession will have no relevance. When a document evidencing a transfer is produced before any of the consolidation authorities, what he has to inquire is whether prima facie the transfer is not in violation of any provision of law including Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act. If it finds that the transaction is declared void, that is, wholly invalid by any provision of law, then it will have to disregard the same for the purpose of consolidation proceedings. It need not refer the question to the Revenue Officer authorised under the O.L.R, Act for his decision. We do not find any such requirement either under the Act or under the O.L.R. Act.
5. Moreover, the inquiry contemplated by Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act is for a different object. It is not a provision for a declaration whether the transfer made in contravention of Section 22 is void or not. It provides for further steps which the Revenue Officer should take if such a void transfer has taken place. The object, as it appears from a bare reading of it, is not only to punish the transferee but also to set at naught the effect of that void transfer. Even if both the parties to the transfer are willing to abide by the transfer, the Revenue Officer can declare the same as void and impose a penalty on the transferee and a part of the penalty can also be directed to be paid to the transferor. Not only that, the Revenue Officer is also authorised to pass an order for restoration of the property to the transferor and, for that purpose, can take necessary steps. Even, when evicted, the transferee will not be entitled to refund of any amount paid by him to the transferor by way of consideration. In absence of this provision, the transferee could have remained in possession and enjoyed the benefit of the void transaction or could have recovered the amount paid to the transferor by way of consideration amount. It is, therefore, not merely an implementing provision but a provision giving positive content to (he restriction imposed by the legislature. Its object is different and scope much wider than what the Division Bench thought while deciding the Labanga Debata's case.
6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the reasons given by the Division Bench for holding that without a decision of the designated authority under the O.L.R, Act, the consolidation authorities cannot disregard the transfer declared as void by Section 22 of the Act are not proper and that the said case has not been correctly decided.
7. The learned advocate for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of A. Deenabandhu Reddy v. Commissioner of Consolidation, (1992) 74 Cut LT 708, wherein it has been held that the conclusions of the authorities under the O.L.R. Act are binding on the consolidation authorities. In that case rights between the parties were concluded by the competent forum before the notification under Section 3 of the Consolidation Act was issued. Therefore, this Court held that the Consolidation Commissioner committed an error of law in ignoring those findings and taking a contrary view. It has to be so because jurisdiction to decide questions relating to right, title, interest and liability in land becomes available to the authorities under the Act only after a notification bringing that area under consolidation operations is published. Moreover Section 51 of the Act which confers jurisdiction on the authorities under the Act to decide questions relating to right, title, interest and liability, in land lying in the consolidation area itself carves out an exception in respect of those questions which are required to be decided by revenue courts or authorities under any local law. On the basis of this judgment and Section 51 of the Act, it was further submitted that the question whether the transfer is invalid or not can be considered by the Revenue Officer under Section 23 of the O. L. R. Act, therefore, the consolidation authorities will have no juris-diction to deal with such a question. We have already pointed out the nature and the purpose of the inquiry under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act. It is not a question which is required to be decided by the Revenue Officer under the O. L. R. Act to the exclusion of any other court or authority. Therefore, this contention raised on behalf of the petitioners also cannot be accepted.
8. The decision of this Court in the case of Manmohan Rout v. State of Orissa, (1992) 74 Cut LT 454, was also relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioners. Therein it has been held that the consolidation authorities are bound to respect the decision of the revenue authorities taken under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. That was also a case where rights of the parties were concluded earlier under that Act. Therefore, this decision also does not support the contention raised by the petitioners.
9. On consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and Sections 22 and 23 of the O.L.R. Act, we are of the opinion that the consolidation authorities while disposing of the objection cases during the consolidation operations have the power to decide whether the transfer relied upon before them is void in view of the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act. This petition shall now be placed before a Division Bench fordealing with the other contentions and for final disposal.
G.B. Patnaik, J.
10. I agree.
P.C. Naik, J.
11. I agree.