Suru Anuradha v. Tadingi Kothana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8613 of 2003 Suru Anuradha ....
Petitioner(s) Mr.S.S.Rao, Advocate -versusTadingi Kothana and others ....
Opposite Party(s) Mr.S.Mishra, ASc.
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
05.07.2022 8.
1.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Order No.
2.
Involving a challenge to the order at Annexure-4 particularly involving the Revision Case No.188 of 2001 arising out of Permission Case No.1 of 2000, Mr.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting in his challenge to the impugned order that once a permission proceeding is initiated under the particular statute and concluded in the participation of the party seeking for permission for sale of particularland and party thereafter taking advantage of such permission enters into registered sale deeds ripping the benefit out of such registration, technical difficulties here and there should not come on the way of such transactions. In the process, Mr.Rao, learned counsel sought this Court interference in the impugned order so far it relates to the above case.
3.
Mr.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel however taking this Court to the observation in paragraph-B at page- 33 of the review order contended that there has been mentioning of technical flaw by the Collector in the disposal of the permission proceeding. Reading through the same, Mr.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended
// 2 // that there is no appropriate disposal of the permission proceeding involved therein justifying the impugned order and such order should not be interfered with.
4.
Considering the rival contentions of the p[arties and on perusal of the permission order vide Annexure-3, reading through the same this Court finds there is clear recording of the competent authority on participation of the party and or representative of the person moving for such permission and it is only after participation of the applicant and entering into certain inquiries, the competent authority being satisfied with the requirement at the relevant point of time granted the permission. This Court, therefore, finds technical flow, if any, traced by the Reviewing Authority is not that material for taking out the permission granted in favour of the person in need of sale of such property that too after his ripping the benefit involving such transaction.
Further, taking into consideration the nature of litigation involved subsequently initiation of review proceeding in the guise of amended provision brought in the year, 2000 to the main regulation, this Court again finds for the nature of proceeding of review, there is no scope available in review of such proceedings. Review involving such nature of case should have been exercised only in the case where there has been no seeking of permission and in the event of any glaring defect in the obtaining of permission. This Court does not find there is satisfaction of any of the above aspect. In the circumstance, this Court declares initiation of review proceeding in such situation as bad in law. 5.
The writ petition succeeds with interference in the impugned order at Annexrue-3.
(Biswanath Rath) Judge Sks