Holding

The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 applies to all agricultural land irrespective of its location in a municipal area, and the Sub‑Divisional Officer's finding on the vendors' caste status is final and not open to re‑examination.

Summary

The case concerned a 2.133-acre agricultural plot on the periphery of Cuttack town that had been sold by persons alleged to belong to the Scheduled Caste to non‑Scheduled Caste buyers. Respondent No.1, a co‑sharer of the vendors, invoked Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, claiming the transfer was void under Section 22(1) because the vendors were Scheduled Caste and the land was agricultural. The Revenue Officer held that the vendors were indeed Scheduled Caste and that the Act applied even though the land lay within municipal limits, declaring the sale invalid. The Special Officer later reversed, stating the Act did not apply to urban land, but the Orissa High Court restored the Revenue Officer's view, holding that the definition of "land" under Section 2(14) includes agricultural land irrespective of its urban location and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Act applies to all agricultural land, that the Sub‑Divisional Officer's finding on caste status was final and could not be reopened, and that no material showed the area was reserved for urbanisation under Section 73(c). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether agricultural land situated within a municipal area falls within the purview of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.
Whether the finding of the Sub‑Divisional Officer that the vendors belong to the Scheduled Caste, unchallenged before the appellate authority, is final and cannot be re‑agitated.
Whether Section 73(c) of the Act excludes urban land from its application.

Subjects

Land reformsAgricultural landMunicipal areaScheduled CasteOrissa Land Reforms ActSection 22Section 23Urban agglomerationFinality of administrative findings

Judgment

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL AND ORS. A
v.
BATARA BEHERA AND ORS.

MARCH 10, 1999

[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) B

Tenancy and Land Laws :

Orissa Land Refonns Act, 1960 :

Sections 2(14) and 73(c)-Land-Situated within municipal area or in c
villages or in an urban agglomeration-Applicability of Act-Held, the Act
applies to all such lands which are being either used or capable or being used
for agiicultural purposes.

Sections 22( I) and 23(2)-Sub-Divisional Officer, on the basis of D
mate1ials produced before him, concluded that vendors of the sale deeds
belonged to the Scheduled Caste-Such conclusion not challenged before
Appellate Auth01ity-Held, finding is final and cannot be pmnitted to be
re-agi,tated again-Hence, High Coult did not consider the said question
lightly-There[ore, the said question cannot be re-opened before the Supreme
~~ E
Words and Phrases :

"Land''--Meaning of-In the context of S. 2( 14) of the Orissa Land
Refonns Act, 1960.
F
The agricultural laud situated within the municipal limits was sold
to the appellants by a Registered Sale Deed in favour of non-scheduled
caste persons by persons alleged to be belonging to Scheduled Casts.
Respondent No. 1 who was a co- sharer of the vendors of the aforesaid Sale
Deed filed petition before the Revenue Ollicer under Section 23 of the G
Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 on the ground that the transfer in question
was in contravention of Section 22(1) of the Act and, therefore, the vendors
should be put back in possession.
>
The Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that the vendors
belonged to the Scheduled Caste and that the lands in !JUestion could be H
969
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A governed by the Act although the said land was situated within the
municipal limits. The Additional Distrkt. Magistrate dismissed the ap-
peal. However, the Special Officer, Land Reforms allowed the revision on
the ground that the Act did not apply to the land in question. Respondent
No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid
B order, which was allowed. Hence this appeal.
)
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that in the absence of
any materials to indicate that the vendors belonged to the Schedule Caste
the embargo under Section 22 of the Act would not apply and, therefore,
the application under Section 23 was not tenable.
c
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, 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
D such agricultural lands merely because they are situated in an Urban ""
Agglomeration. 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 agrarian reform, the object will be frustrated if agricul-
E tural lands within the municipal area are excluded from the purview of the
Act. [972-G]

2. 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 Schedule Caste. Since this finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer
F 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 that
question cannot be re-opened before this Court. [973-B-C]

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 121 of
1986.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.85 of the Orissa High Court
in O.J.C. No. 321 of 1984.

H G.L. Sanghi and Vinoo Bhagat for the Appellants.
O.P.AGARWALv. BATARABEHERA[PAITANAIK,J.] 971
_..,.
P.N. Misra, R.S. Jena and Raj Kumar Mehta for the Respondents. A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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 B
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.l who is a co-sharer of the vendors of c
the aforesaid Sale Deed filed a Perition 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
1
and, therefore, the vendor should be put back in possession. The said D
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. Whik
coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Revenue Officer rejected the
contention that the vendors are not Scheduled Caste persons and also
recorded the fmding that the lands in question could be governed by Orissa
Land Reforms Act notwithstanding the fact that the land is situated within E
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 F
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 judg-
ment 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 G
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 H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A 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 appel-
lant~ contended that the very purpose of the Orissa Land Reforms Act
B 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
C 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, there-
fore, the application under Section 23 of the Act was not tenable. Mr.
Sanghi also submitted that in view of Section 73© of the Land Reforms
Act and in view of the fact that the area comes within a master plan thereby
D necessarily reserved as an urban area the Act cannot have any application.
The learned senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand con-
tended, that the definition of 'Land' in Section 2(14) is wide enough to
include the lands within the mu~.icipal 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
E 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
p 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
G 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
H applies to all lands which is used or capable of being used for agricultural
O.P.AGARWALv. BATARABEHERA[PATIANAIK,J.] 973

purposes irrespective of the fact wherever the said land is situated and the A
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
B
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 c
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 D
has been reserved for urbanisation by a notification issued in the Official
Gazette of the Government within the ambit of Section 73©) 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. E
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.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed. F

>

'