SIMPLE UNCONTESTED MUTATION CASES 11(5) The notice under any of the - - PDF document

SIMPLE UNCONTESTED MUTATION CASES

Section 11(5) of the OLR Act, 1960 “11(5) The notice under any of the proceedings sub-section shall be in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee and shall be transferred to the revenue Officer who shall cause it to be served in the prescribed manner on the landlords named in the notice. He shall also cause a copy of the notice to be transmitted to the authority competent to maintain the record of rights. Section 34 of Indian registration Act, 1908

• 34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer:

(3) The registering officer shall thereupon— (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed; (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. Rule-40 of OS & S Rules , 1962 “ Rule 40: Service of notice: While acting under Rule 34, the Tahasildar shall issue a general notice in Form No-9, inviting objections from person interested within a period of 15 days from the date of service

• f such notice. The Tahasildar, if he deems it necessary, may

issue individual notices in Form-10” Paragraph 38 of the Mutation Manual, 1962 Individual notice may not be necessary in all cases where as a general notice has to be served in all cases”

This case has been instituted U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of the Form No.3 submitted by the Sub-Register as required U/S 11 of the OLR Act 1960 read with rule-14 of the OLR (General) Rules 1965 for effecting changes in the ROR with respect to the land schedule given below. Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- No. Khata No & status Chaka No Plot No Area KIssam As per the instructions contained in R & DM Department letter No. S-36/046584/R dated 16.02.2004, transfer the case record to R.I_____________for disposal. The record Keeper has verified the record position and being satisfied about the correctness of the record position has recommended the Tahasildar to forward the record for further proceeding in the manner as prescribed in Chapter IV of the OS & S Rules , 1962. If the case is un-contested one, the RI shall dispose of the matter within the time frame prescribed in the ORTPS Act 2012 and send the case record to the Officer in-charge

• f the circle for approval. In case any objection is received and if the case involves disputed

question of law , the RI shall refer the case to the Tahasildar/Addl. Tahasildar after filed enquiry along with his findings in the case record. Dictated Tahasildar/Addl. Tahasildar Tahasildar/Addl. Tahasildar

The case is taken up today on receipt of the case record from the Tahasil office. Perused the case record and verified the ROR position. In the instant case, the recorded tenant has transferred the suit land to the applicant/vendee .In the instant case, no individual notice is required considering the provisions of rule-40 of the OS & S Rules 1962 and paragraph 38 of the Mutation Manual, 1962. Issue a general proclamation in the locality inviting public objection if any. Revenue Inspector This case has been instituted U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of the Form No.3 submitted by the Sub-Register as required U/S 11 of the OLR Act 1960 read with rule-14 of the OLR (General) Rules 1965 for effecting changes in the RORs. Sub-Section 5 of Sec-11 is quoted below for better appreciation of the matter. “11(5) The notice under any of the proceedings sub-section shall be in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee and shall be transferred to the revenue Officer who shall cause it to be served in the prescribed manner on the landlords named in the notice. He shall also cause a copy of the notice to be transmitted to the authority competent to maintain the record of rights. Considering the provisions of rule-40 of the OSS rules -1962 and paragraph 38 of the Mutation Manual , I am of the opinion that no individual notices are necessary in this case as all the recorded tenants have transferred the suit land. They have signed the Form No-3 along with the transferee. The signatures of the transferors and the transferee have been verified by the Registering Officers. The Registering Officer has put his signature with seal in token of such verification. Paragraph 40 of the OS & S Rules, 1962 is quoted below “ Rule 40: Service of notice: While acting under Rule 34, the Tahasildar shall issue a general notice in Form No-9, inviting objections from person interested within a period of 15 days from the date of service of such notice. The Tahasildar, if he deems it necessary, may issue individual notices in Form-10” The paragraph 38 of the Mutation manual further provides that “individual notice may not be necessary in all cases where as a general notice has to be served in all cases”

Further the Sub-Register has registered the document after satisfying regarding the identity of the parties appearing before him in the manner as prescribed U/S 34 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam On verification of the ROR available in LRMS portal and on perusal of the RSD No______________dt._____________, it is seen that the Khata No___________containing Plot No___________area _________kissam__________relating to Mouza____________stands recorded in Stitiban status in favour

• f

_____________________S/o___________________.The recorded tenant has transferred the land to the present vendee/applicant vide RSD No. _____________dt._____________ and delivered possession. The flow of title from the recorded tenant to the transferee is proved . During field enquiry , it is found that the transferee is in possession over the suit land .General notice has been duly published in the locality and no objection has been received from any quarter. In view of the facts stated above ,mutation is allowed. Submitted the case record to the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for confirmation. Revenue Inspector The case is taken up today. Perused the order dated __________passed by the Revenue Inspector. The order of the RI is hereby confirmed .Send the case record to the Record Keeper for correction of RORs after expiry of the statutory appeal period.

• Addl. Tahasildar

RES JUDICATA Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• 11. Res judicata— No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and

substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court “ The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name on the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________. Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Chaka No Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of records, it is seen that the mutation case No. _________/_________earlier instituted in respect of the suit land U/R 34 of the OS & S Rules , 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the mutation manual involving the same parties has already been disposed of by this Court on merit. Therefore this case is hit by the provisions of res judicata contained in Section-II of the Code of Civil Procedure . It is a settled position of law that same court, same parties, same suit land and same cause of action cannot be adjudicated twice. In view of the above provisions of law the case is dismissed.

RES SUBJUDICE Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• 10. Stay of suit— No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in

issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name on the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________. Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Chaka No Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of records, it is seen that the mutation case No. _________/_________earlier instituted in respect of the suit land U/R 34 of the OS & S Rules , 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the mutation manual involving the same parties, same suit land and same cause of action is pending for adjudication before this Court. Therefore this case is hit by the provisions of res subjudice contained in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view of the above provisions of law, there is no necessity to proceed with the matter without entering into the merit of the matter, the case is rejected.

UNDEVIDED AND IMPARTIABLE SHARE The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name on the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________. Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Chaka No Plot No Area KIssam On verification of records, it is seen that the mutation case has been instituted U/R 34 of the OS & S Rules , 1962 on the strength of Form No-3 issued by the Sub- Register as per the provisions contained in Section 11 of the OLR Act ,1960 read with Rule 14(1) of the OLR (General) Rules, 1965 for effecting changes in the RORs. On verification of the RSD No_____________dated ___________, it is seen that the property transferred in an undevided and impartiable share on land (apartment /flat) . No specific part of the plot can be mutated in favour of the vendee in the absence of any definite proportionate share on the land over which apartment has been constructed. I view of the above facts, mutation case is rejected.

OLR 8(A) :2006 AMENDMENT Section 8(A) of the OLR Act, 1960

8-A(3) : The lease documents executed on or before the date of commencement of

the Orissa Land Reforms( Amendment )Act, 2006 for the purpose of conversion under this section shall be in operative and the premium paid for such lease shall be treated to be conversion fee” The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to correct the status

• f

the Khata No.______________relating to Mouza_____________from “Patadar” to “Sthitiban”. On verification of records, it is seen that the Khata No. ___________relating to Mouza ______________stands recorded in Patadar status as per the orders passed by the Authorized Officer in OLR Case No.___________/___________ u/s 8(A) of the Act, 1960. Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of records, it is seen that the law relating to conversion of agricultural land for purpose other than agriculture has already been amended vide Orissa Act No. 8 of 2006 O.G.E No. 965 dated 07.07.2006 sub-section 3 of Section 8(A) of the amended Act is quoted below for better appreciation of the matter:- “ 8(A)3 – The lease documents executed on or before the commencement of the

Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2006 for the purpose of conversion under this section shall be inoperative and the premium paid for such lease shall be treated to be conversion fee”. In view of the above provisions of law, it is clear that

• 1. Lease deed executed prior to the amended Act is inoperative.
• 2. Raiyats are not surrendering their raiyats right while converting the

classification from “ agriculture” to non-agriculture” The status “Patadar” is associated with “Lease:. Since the basic fundamental principle governing conversion of agricultural land for non agricultural

use has already been changed after the amendment of 2006, the status recorded is in the RORs has lost its significance. Existence of this status in the RORs merely creats confusion and may lead to “transaction cost”. Therefore, the word “Stitiban/ Rayati” should be recorded in place of “Patadar” The petition is allowed.

The R.K is directed to correct the status

• f

the Khata No. ___________relating to Mouza ___________as “sthitiban” in place of “Pattadar”

APPLICATION U/S 8 (A) O FTHE OLR ACT , 1960 INVOLVING FOREST LAND THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980

• 2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or sue of forest land for

non forest purpose – No forest land (forest of any description irrespective of ownership ) can be used for non forest activities without the prior permission of the Ministry of Forest, Environment and Climate Change . This is an application filed u/s 8(A) of the O.L.R Act, 1960 by _________________________________S/o________________________ for conversion of the land schedule given below from “agriculture” to “non- agriculture”. Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of records, it is seen that the classification of Plot No.___________relating to Mouza ____________is recorded as “ jungle” in the RORs finally published on __________________. The classification “ jungle” is not coming within the ambit of the definition of “agriculture” as provided in section 2(1) read with the definition of land as provided in section 2(14) of the OLR Act, 1960. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 stipulates that forest land can not be put to non-forest use without the prior permission of the Ministry of Forest, Environment and climate

• change. The term forest has been clearly defined by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India

in the order dated 12.12.2996 passed in the W.P ( C ) No. 202/95 in the matter of T. Godavirman –Vrs- State . The relevant of portion of the said order is quoted below:-

“ The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further

deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and fore matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest: must be understood according to its dictionary

• meaning. This description cover all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as

reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership

• r classification thereof ”.

In view of the above provisions of law, the application filed u/s 8(A) of the Act is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. ***

TRANSFER OF LAND CREATING FRAGMENTATION OF CHAKA LAND

Section-2 (m) of OCH & PFL Act,1972: “fragment” means a compact parcel of agricultural land held by a land –

• wner by himself or jointly with others comprising an area which is less than –

(i) One acre in the District of Cuttack, Puri, Balesore, Ganjam and Anandpur subdivision in the district of Keonjhar and (ii) two acres in other areas of the State. Section-34 : Prevention of fragmentation (1) No agricultural land in a locality shall be transferred or partitioned so as to create a fragment. Section-35 : Consequence of transfer or partition contrary to provisions of Section 34 (1) A transfer or partition in contravention of the provisions of Section 34 shall be void.

The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name

• n the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________.

Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Chaka No Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of records, it is seen that the Hal R.O.R in respect of village _______________was finally published u/s 22 of the O.C.H & PFL Act, 1972.

The petitioner has purchased a part of the chaka measuring area Ac._____dec thereby creating fragmentation of the chaka land. The R.S.D No._________dt.________ has been executed in violation of provisions of 34 and 35 of the O.C.H and P.F.L Act, 1972. It is a settled position of law that registered instruments executed in violation of Section 34 of the O.C.H & P.F.L Act1972 are void abinitio and do not confer any title to the vendee/transferee. The relevant provisions of section 34 and 35 of the Act is quoted below for better appreciation. “ 34.Prevention of fragmentation- (1 ) No agricultural land in a locality shall be transferred or partitioned so as to create a fragment. 35.Consequences of transfer or partition contrary to provisions of Section 34-(1) A transfer or partition in contravention of the provisions of Section 34 shall be void. “ In view of the above provisions of law, the mutation petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.

PRE-PUBLICATION CAUSE OF ACTION The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name

• n the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________.

Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of the case record, it is seen that the hal RORs in respect of Village ______________was finally published by the Settlement Authorities on __________________. The petitioner prays for RORs correction

• n

the strength

• f

purchase vide RSD No._____________/___________. Since this is a prepublication cause of action, the Tahasildar lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 1997(I) OLR-13 & 1998 OLR(I)-495. Government in Revenue and Excise Department has also issued instructions to that effect vide No. 25251/R dt.06/05/1999 . The operative part of the order dated 31.08.1998 passed by the Hon’b;e Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the matter of Harihar Mohapatra and Ors- Vrs -Commissioner Land records and Settlement reported in 1998(II), OLR-495 is quoted below for better appreciation of the matter “ A conjoint reading of the provision makes it clear that the correction of ROR and map to be made on the grounds enumerated in Rule-34 have to be based on cause of action which arose after preparation of ROR. Xxxx. Therefore Rule 34 can not be resorted to by making an application in respect of cause of

action which arose prior to the publication of ROR.xxxx. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the Commissioner was correct in his conclusion that correction of ROR in respect of factual position which was existing prior to the publication of ROR is not permissible . The Commissioner has observed that the party aggrieved is at liberty to move the Board of Revenue to challenge such Hal ROR

• r may move the Civil Court.”

Entertainment and disposal of such applications are not only without jurisdiction but are also illegal. Orders passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and its validity could be set up wherever and whenever it is set to be enforced or relied upon even at the stage of execution and collateral proceedings. In view of the above provisions of law, the mutation case is rejected. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Board of Revenue u/s 15 (b) of the O.S & S Act, 1958 or else he is at liberty to prefer civil suit in the competent Court of law.

CLERICAL AND ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES Rule 43 of OS & S Rules , 1962:

• 43. Review: Any person considering himself aggrieved by any decision under this chapter

may apply within thirty days from the date of the decision for a review of the order to the Officer, who passed the said order on the ground of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the officer may after giving to the parties interested a reasonable

• pportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as he thinks fit.

The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to correct his name as “______________________” in place of “ ___________________”in the Khata No. ___________relating to ________________prepared in his name on the strength of the orders passed in the MC No.___________/___________. He further prays to correct the area of the Plot No. ______________as Ac __________ in place of Ac.___________ as per his lawful entitlement acquired as per purchase. Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of the records , it is seen that the correct name of the petitioner is “__________________________”. But his name has been wrongly recorded as “____________________”. Further the petitioner has purchased an area

• f

the Ac._______ from the RT/Vendor vide RSD No____________/___________. His name and area have been wrongly recorded in the ROR. Since these are clerical and arithmetical mistakes arising out of accidental slip or

• mission, it needs correction in the interest of natural justice and in view of the provisions of

Rule 43 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 is quoted below for better appreciation of the matter.

• 43. Review: “Any person considering himself aggrieved by any decision under this

chapter may apply within thirty days from the date of the decision for a review of the order to the Officer, who passed the said order on the ground of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the officer may after giving to the parties interested a reasonable

• pportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as he thinks fit”.

TRANSFER OF LAND RECORDED IN FAVOUR OF PUBLIC DEITY VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE OHRE ACT 1951 The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 Section 19 - Alienation of immovable trust property: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force no transfer by exchange, sale or mortgage and no lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution, shall be made unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution and no such transfer shall be valid or operative unless it is so sanctioned. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule in his name on the strength of purchase vide RSD No._______________/__________ from the Marfatdar of the deity Shree Jagannath Mahapravu beje Cuttack / Nejagaon/ Raghunathpur. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name

• n the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________.

Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of the case records, it is seen that the Khata No. _____________relating to Mouza ______________stands recorded in sthitiban status of the deity Shree Jagannath Mohapravu bije ___________/____________/_________. Proviso to section 41 of the OHRE Act, 1951 provides that every deity is a publis deity unless the contrary is proved. There is no materials on record to establish that the deity is a private deity. In the absence of any supporting materials, it must be presumed that Shree Jagannath Mohapravu beje Cuttack is a public deity.

Once it is established that the deity is a public deity , prior permission from the Endowment Commissioner u/s 19 of the OHRE Act, 1951 is required before alienation/transfer. Since there is no written permission from the Endowment Commissioner, the RSD No. ________________dt._________________, executed by the Marfatdar of the deity in favour of the present petitioner is void abinitio and do not confer any title in his favour. In view of the above provisions of law, the mutation application is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.

GA LAND CLASSIFICATION- GOCHAR The Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983: Section 2(h):Urban area “Urban area” means an area within limits of i. a Municipal corporation, Municipality or Notified Area Council. ii. The area of jurisdiction of a Development Authority , or iii. Such other areas as the Government may , by notification , decide from time to time. (Inserted vide O.G.E No. 881 dt. 09.05.2013 (SRONo. 323/2013 dt. 07.05.2013) Section 4 :De-reservation principles: 4(2) : While de-reserving any Government land recorded as Gochar , the authorized Officer shall assess the reasonable requirement for the purpose of Gochar for use by the community in the following manner. x x x x x x x x x Provided that the above provisions shall not apply to Gochar situated in an urban area. The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name on the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________. Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the applicant and on perusal of the case record, it is seen that the suit plot No._____________relating to Mouza_______________stands

recorded in favour of the applicant. The classification of the plot No. has been recorded as “Gochar”. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the land schedule was

• riginally recorded in favour of GA Department, Government of Orissa.The suit land

was leased out in favour of the applicant for the purpose of “ homestead”. But at the time of mutation, the classification has not been corrected as a result of which the earlier classification “Gochar” still found place in the ROR prepared in favour of the petitioner. It is not out of place to mention here that the suit village ____________is coming under the jurisdiction of BMC area. Therefore, the principle of de reservation as contemplated in the OGLS Act, 1962 and Rules framed there under is not applicable in the urban area. In view of the above, mutation is allowed. The R.K is directed to correct the classification of the plot No. ___________relating to Mouza ___________as “homestead” in place of “Gochar”.

TRANSFER OF LAND VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 OF THE OLR ACT, 1960 THE ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1960

Section 22.: Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes – (1) Any transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void except where it is in favour of - (a) a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe or (b) a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe when such transfer is made with the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer : Provided that in case of a transfer by sale the Revenue Officer shall not grant such permission unless he is satisfied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe willing to pay the market price for the land is not available, and in case of a gift unless he is satisfied about the bona fides thereof. (4) Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force where any document required to be registered under the provisions of clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 purports to effect transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document, unless such document is accompanied by the written permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer. The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name on the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________. Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the applicant and on perusal of the case record, it is seen that the ROR holder __________________________is a person belonging to scheduled caste community

having sub caste __________________. This sub caste found place in entry No.________________ of the presidential sub caste order, 1950 for the State of Odisha. The applicant is a person belonging to a caste not found place in the Presidential Schedule Caste order. In the instant case, no prior written permission has been obtained from the Revenue Officer as required u/s 22 of the OLR Act, 1960. In the absence of prior written permission from the RO, the RSD No. _____________dt.____________is void abinitio and does not confer any title in favour of the vendee.

TRANSFER OF LAND VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 6(A) OF THE OLR ACT, 1960 THE ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1960 Section 6(A):Temporary ban on transfer of land settled by Government (1) Not withstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section-6, but subject to the

provisions of Sub-Section (3) thereof any transfer by a raiyat of any land which has been settled with him for agricultural purpose under a permanent lease from Government shall, if such transfer is made within a period of 10 years from the date of such settlement without

• btaining the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer , be void.

The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name

• n the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________.

Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the applicant and on perusal of records, it is seen that the suit land was leased out in favour of the recorded tenant as per the order dated ______________________passed in the lease case No__________/___________under the provision of the OGLS Act, 1962 and the Rules framed thereunder. As per the provision of the section __________of the OLR Act, 1960 amended during 1975, a lessor can not transfer the land settled in his name within a period of 10 years from the date of sanction of lease. Any such transfer in contravention of the provision of the said section is void and inoperative.

BHOODAN LAND

The Orissa Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1970

• 30. Grantee or allottee of land not be a tenant.

No person to whom any land is granted by the Samiti or is allotted by a Grama Parishad under this Act shall be deemed to be a tenant in respect of such land for the purpose of any law relating to tenancy for the time being in force. The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name

• n the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________.

Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the applicant and on perusal of records, it is seen that the suit land belongs to Orissa “Bhoodan Jagyan Samiti “. The applicant claims ROR correction in his name as per purchase from the alottee vide RSD No_________dt._________. The law is well settled that land allotted by Bhoodan Jagyan Samiti is not a tenant in view of the provision of Section 30 of the Orissa Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1970. Since the alottee are not tenant within the meaning of the tenancy laws i.e OLR Act, 1960 in force, any such transfer in contravention to Section 30 of the act is void and inoperative.

INTERIM DOCUMENT NOT FOUND The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name

• n the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________.

Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of records, it is seen that the Hal Khata No_____________relating to Mouza_________________stands recorded in Stitiban status in favour

• f

________________________________________________________________ __________. The petitioner claims ROR correction on the strength of purchase vide RSD No_______________dt._____________.The petitioner has not produced the original sale deed/document of title to prove the title of the vendor. In the absence of all such interim documents, the flow of title of the petitioner from recorded tenant is not proved. In view of the above factors, the mutation case is dismissed for want of documents.

DEATH AND SUCCESSION The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name

• n the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________.

Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam Having heard the applicant and on perusal of the case records, it is seen that the Khata No.__________stands recorded in sthitiban status in favour of ___________________S/o_________________________.The local enquiry report of Revenue Inspector,________________ indicates that the recorded tenant is dead leaving behind the following successors/Class-I legal heirs. Name of the Legal heir Father’s Name Relationship with deceased It is a settled position of law that ROR can not be stood recorded in favour

• f a dead person. Therefore the name of the successor/legal heirs shall be

recorded in place of the deceased recorded tenant. Accordingly the mutation is allowed as per death and succession.

FREEHOLD The case is taken up today. This case has been initiated U/R 34 of the O.S & S Rules, 1962 read with paragraph 17(1) of the Mutation Manual , 1962 on the strength of application filed by _______________________. The petitioner prays to record the land schedule given below in his name

• n the strength of purchase vide R.S.D No. ___________dt.___________.

Land Schedule Mouza: P.S- Khata No & status Plot No Area KIssam It is seen that the suit land is a leasehold land and the lease has been granted by the GA Department for the purpose of homestead. The ROR has been prepared in the name of __________________________________as per the order passed by the Tahasildar in MC No. _____________/__________. The sthitiban order No.____________/_________issued by the Director of Estates-cum-ex-officio Addl. Secretary to Government, GA & PG Department , it is seen that the lease hold land has been converted to freehold land. Registered conveyance deed No.________________/_____________has also been executed by the GA Department. In view of the above facts, the status of Khata No.______________shall be recorded as sthitiban status in place of patadar. Accordingly the mutation is allowed.