Srimati Sethy and others vs Competent Authority & Land Acquisition Officer, NH-6(49), Keonjhar

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.22749 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950).

Srimati Sethy and others .... Petitioner(s)

-versus-

Competent Authority & Land .... Opposite Party (s) Acquisition Officer, NH-6(49), Keonjhar & Ors.

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. Along with associates Mr. Tarun Kanta Pattanayak, Adv.

For Opposite Party (s) : Smt. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, ASC Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, Sr. Adv. Along with associates Mr. Soumya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Umesh Chandra Mohanty, Adv.

CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-23.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -18.07.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners, through this Writ Petition, seek to challenge the Order

dated 19.03.2024 passed by the District Judge, Keonjhar in C.M.A. No.

01/2024 in Execution Case No. 75/2019 (arising out of Arbitration

Page 1 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

Award dated 24.11.2018 in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 13/2017 and

L.A. Case No. 79/2017), whereby the petition filed under Section 47

read with Order XXI Rules 97, 101 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 was rejected.

2. The Petitioners, though admittedly not parties to the original

proceedings, are the legal heirs of the original landowners and have a

substantive interest in the land acquired under the National

Highways Act, 1956, specifically land notified under Section 3-A and

compensation determined under Section 3-G(5). The impugned Order

is alleged to have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation,

excluding the Petitioners who are necessary parties with valid legal

rights.

3. It is argued that despite these rights, the Executing Court dismissed

the application, solely on the ground of prior litigation before this

High Court and Supreme Court and the delay in the execution

process, without proper judicial application of mind. The rejection is

ex facie perverse, contrary to statutory provisions, and warrants

interference.

4. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 19.03.2024 is liable to be set

aside with appropriate directions for impleadment of the Petitioners

in the execution proceedings and for proper adjudication in

accordance with law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Page 2 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

(i) The petitioners in the present matter are Scheduled Caste women

belonging to a pardanshin community, residing in a remote tribal area

of Keonjhar district.

(ii) The land in question, described in Schedule "B", is the ancestral

property originally held by one Late Nabei Sethy, who belonged to

the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. He held absolute right, title, and

interest over this land, which was duly recorded in his name in the

Hal/Major Settlement Record of Rights. Upon his demise, his estate

devolved upon his legal heirs: three sons, namely Kalakar,

Pumachandra, and Moheswar, and three daughters, namely Parbati @

Srimati, Saraswati, and Malati (the latter being one of the present

petitioners). Accordingly, the property left behind by Late Nabei

Sethy, including the Schedule "B" land, became undivided

coparcenary property among his successors.

(iii) The Schedule "B" land is situated under the jurisdiction of the

Collectorate of Keonjhar District, within the Office of the Sub-

Registrar, Keonjhar, P.S. Town, in the village of Baniapat Khuntapada.

The land is recorded in Hal/Major Settlement under Khata No. 50 and

comprises a total area of 4 acres and 400 decimals. The specific plots

and their respective areas are as follows:

Plot No. Area 130 A0.300 dec 135 A0.200 dec 136 A0.190 dec 137 A0.180 dec 138 A0.170 dec

Page 3 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

Plot No. Area 139 A0.090 dec 142 A0.090 dec 143 A0.220 dec 144 A0.210 dec 145 A0.120 dec 148 A0.090 dec 149 A0.210 dec 150 A0.050 dec 229 A0.100 dec 230 A0.140 dec 231 A0.190 dec 232 A0.070 dec 237 A0.120 dec 238 A0.110 dec 245 A0.100 dec 249 A0.180 dec 250 A0.200 dec 251 A0.180 dec 252 A0.240 dec 253 A0.150 dec 254 A0.280 dec 257 A0.160 dec 258 A0.060 dec

(iv) During Kalakar's lifetime, his son Manoranjan predeceased him in the

year 2011, leaving behind his wife Lily, son Sarat, and daughter

Manisha. Kalakar passed away in the year 2015, leaving his wife

Tulasi, sons Arjun and Gurucharan, daughters Kuila and Saila, and

the legal heirs of his deceased son Manoranjan. Similarly, Moheswar

died leaving behind his daughters Menak, Rashmita, Minka @ Japani,

and son Basudeb. Gurucharan, one of Kalakar's sons, passed away on Page 4 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

26.11.2023, survived by his wife Reena, son Saumya Ranjan, and

daughter Sonali. Despite the passage of time, no partition has taken

place among the legal heirs, and the Schedule "B" land continues to be

possessed by various heirs according to personal convenience without

any formal demarcation or division.

(v) The Genealogy of the Sethy Family is produced hereinbelow:

(vi) It is submitted that Shri Dillip Kumar Pati ("Opp. Party No. 3")

became aware that a portion of the Schedule "B" land, referred to as

Schedule "C", was likely to be acquired by the Government of India

for the construction of a bypass under National Highway No. 6. The

three sons of Late Nabei Sethy i.e. Kalakar, Moheswar, and

Pumachandra, thereafter executed various registered sale deeds in

favour of Shri Dillip Kumar Pati and one Balaram Patra. These

include:

Page 5 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

a. RSD No. 11001101369 dated 13.06.2011, executed by the Opp .

Party No.3, Sri Dillip Kumar Pati had purchased the land from

Kalakar, Maheswar and Puna without taking the consent of their 3

sisters (present petitioners) who are the daughters of Late Nabei

Sethy beyond their share.

b. RSD No. 11001200410 dated 02.03.2012, executed by Tulasi Sethy

(W/o Late Kalakar Sethy) and Maheswar Sethy, in favour of

Balaram Patra.

c. RSD No. 11001300363 dated 14.03.2013, whereby the same land

was re-transferred by Balaram Patra to Dillip Kumar Pati.

d. RSD No. 11001300596 dated 27.04.2013, executed by Maheswar

Sethy.

e. RSD No. 11001301285 dated 11.09.2013, executed by Purna Sethy,

S/o Late Nabei Sethy, in favour of Balaram Patra.

f. RSD No. 11001400328 dated 25.02.2014, whereby Balaram Patra

transferred the land to Dillip Kumar Pati.

(vii) Relevant permissions were obtained from the Sub-Collector, Keonjhar

in respect of some of these transactions, including Anumati Nos. 29/12

and 27/12.

(viii) Subsequently, the Government of India issued Gazette Notification

No. S.O. 3424(E) dated 16.12.2015 and Declaration No. S.O. 2036(E)

dated 09.06.2016 for acquisition of Schedule "C" land for National

Highway purposes. Compensation amounting to ₹6,96,09,267.00 was

disbursed to Dillip Kumar Pati and others. Thereafter, pursuant to an

appeal under Misc. Arbitration Case No. 3/2017, the Arbitrator-cum-

Page 6 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

Collector, Keonjhar granted an enhanced compensation of ₹ 21,08,72

,530.00/-

(ix) Meanwhile, when Dillip Kumar Pati and certain co-sharers attempted

to interfere with the petitioners' possession over the unpartitioned

land, the petitioners instituted C.S. No.105/2017 before the Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Keonjhar seeking partition. The suit was eventually

withdrawn when they were promised appropriate compensation. The

petitioners are now arrayed as defendants in C.S. No. 9/2018 filed by

others. They also initiated C.M.A. No. 01/2024 before the learned

District Judge, Keonjhar under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rules

97 and 101 and Section 151 CPC, arising out of Execution Case No.

75/2019.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioners submit that as Class I legal heirs of Late Nabei Sethy,

they continue to hold undivided coparcenary rights over the Schedule

"B" property while the Opposite Party No.3 tries to dispossess them

of their rightful property.

(ii) They contend that the six sale deeds executed between 2011 and 2014,

many of which involved one Balaram Patra, a BPL cardholder and

daily labourer, were executed without their knowledge or consent,

and are therefore void ab initio. These transactions, they argue, do not

convey valid legal title or interest to the vendees.

Page 7 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

(iii) Specifically, the petitioners argue that:

a. The sale deeds executed between 2011 and 2014, particularly

those involving Balaram Patra, a daily labourer and BPL

cardholder, raise concerns of procedural irregularity and lack of

bona fide consideration.

b. In RSD No. 11001200410 dated 02.03.2012, executed by Tulasi

Sethy and Maheswar Sethy in favour of Balaram Patra, the

consideration amount of ₹72,00,000/- was not supported by any

recital as to mode of payment (cash or cheque). Both executants

were illiterate and affixed thumb impressions.

c. The subsequent sale by Balaram Patra to Dillip Kumar Pati under

RSD No. 11001300363 dated 14.03.2013 for ₹79,20,000 cited

"medical treatment" as the reason, although no supporting

records were annexed.

d. The petitioners submit that the RSD No. 11001300596 dated

27.04.2013, executed by Maheswar Sethy in favour of Dillip

Kumar Pati, similarly does not disclose the manner of payment of

the consideration of ₹45,65,000/-.

e. In RSD No. 11001301285 dated 11.09.2013, another transaction

was executed between Purna Sethy and Balaram Patra for

₹67,65,000/-. However, no mention is made regarding the source

of funds or payment mechanism, which the petitioners argue is

questionable given Balaram Patra's financial profile as a BPL.

f. This was followed by RSD No. 11001400328 dated 25.02.2014,

wherein Balaram Patra transferred the land to Dillip Kumar Pati

Page 8 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

for ₹1,23,00,000/- citing repayment of loan and medical expenses.

The petitioners raise doubt over the capacity of a BPL cardholder

to engage in such high-value transactions.

(iv) Notwithstanding this, it is submitted that the revenue records were

mutated in favour of Opposite Party No. 3 in connivance with

revenue authorities and by suppressing the petitioners' lawful rights.

(v) It is further submitted that the sale deeds reflect various procedural

irregularities, including lack of recitals regarding consideration paid,

absence of credible documentation of financial capacity of the

purchaser(s), and discrepancies in the stated reasons for transfer.

(vi) The petitioners assert that the illiteracy of some of the executants,

coupled with the absence of any formal partition, rendered the sale

deeds beyond the legal authority of the sellers. In particular, the

petitioners never alienated their 50% share in Ac. 1.44 dec or Ac. 1.23

dec of land and were never party to the relevant transactions.

Moreover, the alleged consideration amounts, ranging from

₹45,65,000/- to over ₹1 crore, are not substantiated by credible

evidence, especially given the financial background of some of the

individuals involved.

(vii) The petitioners initiated C.S. No. 105/2017 seeking partition but, upon

being misled by representations and promises made by Dillip Kumar

Pati following the government's land acquisition notification, they

withdrew the suit. Thereafter, Gurucharan, son of Late Kalakar,

instituted C.S. No. 9/2018, which remains pending, wherein the

petitioners are arrayed as Defendants Nos.3, 9, and 10. Despite this,

Page 9 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

the land in question was subsequently acquired by the Government of

India for construction of National Highway No. 6, and substantial

compensation was paid exclusively to Dillip Kumar Pati and others

without the knowledge or involvement of the petitioners. Initially, an

amount of ₹6,96,09,267.00/- was disbursed; thereafter, on appeal, an

enhanced compensation amount of ₹21,08,72,530.00 was granted by

the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Keonjhar. The petitioners assert that,

being entitled to at least a one-sixth share in the said property and

compensation, their exclusion amounts to an arbitrary and

unconstitutional deprivation of property under Article 300A of the

Constitution.

(viii) In light of this, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 10075/2024 before this

Court, which was disposed of by order dated 25.04.2024 with a

direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to decide on the apportionment of

both original and enhanced compensation in L.A. Case No. 79/2013. It

is only thereafter that the petitioners came to understand the extent of

fraudulent mechanisms adopted by Dillip Kumar Pati in concert with

certain officials and co-sharers; both to effect illegal mutation in his

favour and to alienate land even while partition proceedings were

pending. They allege that the process involved manipulation of

official records, concealment of material facts, and misrepresentation

of ownership rights.

(ix) Therefore, the petitioners contend that the entire course of action

undertaken by Opposite Party No.3 amounts to systematic usurpation

of their legal rights, achieved through deceit, coercion, and abuse of

Page 10 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

administrative machinery. They claim to have been deprived of both

ancestral land and legitimate compensation without due process of

law. These actions, they submit, warrant judicial intervention not only

to safeguard their proprietary rights but also to prevent the further

erosion of constitutional protections guaranteed to marginalized and

vulnerable citizens.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i). It is submitted that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in the

eye of law. This writ petition arises from an application filed by the

petitioners under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rules 97 and 101

and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned

District Judge, Keonjhar, in Execution Case No. 75 of 2019. This

application was registered as C.M.A. No. 01 of 2024, wherein the

petitioners prayed for setting aside the arbitral award passed in

favour of this deponent (the decree-holder) in Misc. Arbitration Case

No. 13 of 2017 and for issuance of a fresh award.

(ii). The learned Executing Court, upon hearing the parties and examining

the record, dismissed the said application by a reasoned and detailed

order, rightly characterizing the same as frivolous and an abuse of

process. The core findings of the Executing Court were that the

petitioners were well aware of the proceedings and had earlier

instituted Civil Suit No. 105 of 2017 before the Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Keonjhar, raising similar grievances. However, that suit

Page 11 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

was withdrawn with a categorical statement that no further legal

proceedings would be initiated in connection with the properties in

question.

(iii). Despite having knowledge of the proceedings from the inception, the

petitioners never took steps to implead themselves as parties to the

original arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, the matter has already

been adjudicated at multiple levels, including by this Court and the

Supreme Court. The present application was filed after an inordinate

and unexplained delay of nearly five years from the initiation of

proceedings, with no credible justification. It is evident that the

petition was moved merely to delay the execution proceedings.

(iv). The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a complete

statutory framework for challenging an arbitral award. Section 31

deals with the form and contents of the award, Section 34 provides for

filing an application to set aside an award, and Section 37 lays down

the appellate remedy. If a party aggrieved by an award does not file

an application under Section 34 within the prescribed time, the award

attains finality under Section 35 and becomes enforceable as a decree

under Section 36 of the Act. In the present case, no application under

Section 34 was ever filed by the petitioners, nor did they object during

the relevant stages of the acquisition process. As such, they are now

estopped from raising objections at the execution stage, which is

governed solely by the provisions of Order XXI of the CPC. Once the

award is final and the execution has commenced, the procedural law

applicable is that of the CPC, not the parent Act of 1996.

Page 12 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

(v). Order XXI Rule 97 deals with resistance or obstruction to possession,

Rule 98 with the order after adjudication, and Rules 99 to 101 deal

with claims to possession and the powers of the executing court in

adjudicating such claims. Rule 103 further stipulates that such

adjudications shall be treated as decrees and shall be subject to appeal.

Accordingly, the impugned order is deemed to be a decree under law,

and hence, an appeal lies therefrom. In the presence of a statutory

appeal remedy, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

is not maintainable. The Supreme Court has time and again held that

writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked where alternate efficacious

remedies exist. The writ petition ought to be dismissed with

exemplary costs to deter litigants from filing vexatious and forum-

shopping applications.

(vi). It is also pertinent to note that when the writ petition was first listed

on 17.09.2024 under the Fresh Admission category, this Hon'ble Court

had directed the counsel for the petitioners to satisfy the Court on the

maintainability of the petition in view of the availability of the

appellate remedy. Instead of responding to this direction, the

petitioners appeared through proxy counsel citing the illness of the

arguing counsel and later took advantage of the change in bench

composition to file the present interim application, which has

unfortunately resulted in the passing of an interim order to their

advantage. This conduct is not only reprehensible but clearly

indicative of an attempt to mislead the Court and stall the lawful

execution of the award.

Page 13 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

(vii). Moreover, the petitioners have earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 17406 of 2024

before the Division Bench of this Court seeking similar reliefs, in

which even interim relief was declined. They also filed CMP No.

28339 of 2024 challenging the same subject matter now urged in this

writ petition, which was dismissed by the Registry. This amounts to

forum shopping and an abuse of the process of law. The petitioners

cannot be permitted to reopen issues that have been settled or

withdrawn by them earlier, including in C.S. No. 105 of 2017 which

they voluntarily withdrew before the National Lok Adalat after a

settlement, expressly stating that they had no further claim over the

disputed land.

(viii). It is also on record that after the death of Nabei Sethy, there was a

family partition between his heirs on 19.01.2011, and the petitioners'

brothers lawfully sold their respective shares to the Opposite Party

No. 3, including the acquired lands. The Gazette Notification for

acquisition was published in 2015 and the award was enhanced in

2018. Yet the petitioners remained silent and initiated proceedings

only in 2024, clearly indicating malafide intent.

(ix). Further, the petitioners are already arrayed as defendants in C.S. No.

9 of 2018 but failed to file their written statements and were set ex

parte. They have also moved an application under Order VI Rule 16

CPC in that suit admitting that the suit schedule land has vested in

the Central Government and is not divisible. This very admission,

juxtaposed with the reliefs sought herein, reveals a duplicitous and

Page 14 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

opportunistic approach aimed solely at frustrating lawful possession

and compensation of the answering respondent.

(x). The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery1 and

Chancellor v. Bijay Ananda Kar2 has held that writ relief cannot be

granted to a petitioner who approaches the court with unclean hands

or suppresses material facts. The conduct of the petitioners herein

squarely falls within that prohibition.

(xi). It is further submitted that the National Highways Authority of India

(NHAI), Opposite Party No. 4, attempted to implead itself in the

Execution Case No. 75 of 2019 by filing an application under Order I

Rule 10(2) CPC, which was rejected. The NHAI pursued CMP No. 116

of 2024 before this Hon'ble Court, and then SLP(C) No. 13681 of 2024

before the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed. The

petitioners, in collusion with NHAI, are now seeking to reopen issues

settled by the Apex Court itself, which is impermissible.

(xii). Lastly, the application by the petitioners for reference under Section

3H(4) of the NH Act was rejected by the competent authority in view

of their previous conduct and withdrawal of civil suit. The petitioners

have challenged that rejection in W.P.(C) No. 17406 of 2024 pending

before the Division Bench. Having failed to secure interim relief there,

they are now attempting a backdoor entry through the present writ

petition.

1 AIR 1977 SC 781 2 AIR 1994 SC 579

Page 15 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

(xiii). In view of the aforementioned facts and judicial precedents, the

present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived, malafide, and not

maintainable in law. It deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs

for abuse of process and repeated forum shopping.

IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

8. Before adverting on the merits of the instant petition, this Court finds

it apposite to discuss the settled law with regards to the "rule of

alternate remedy" and its judicial exposition.

9. While the existence of an alternate remedy is a relevant consideration,

it is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The rule of

alternate remedy is a rule of self-restraint and not a jurisdictional

limitation. Writ jurisdiction may still be invoked where the remedy

provided by statute is not efficacious, where fundamental rights are

violated, where principles of natural justice have been breached, or

where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or are vitiated

by mala fides. Thus, the existence of an alternate forum does not

preclude the High Court from exercising its constitutional powers

when the circumstances so warrant.

10. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai,3 a

two judge Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on this

point, noted that the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts is

discretionary and is limited by the principle of exhaustion of equal

and efficacious alternate statutory remedies. While as a general

principle, exhaustion of equal and efficacious alternate statutory

3 1998 (8) SCC 1, 1998 (8)

Page 16 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

remedies is mandatory, there are certain exceptions and the High

Courts do entertain writs and adjudicate matters basis principles. The

relevant paragraphs are produced hereinbelow:

"14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on (1998) 8 SCC 1 ("Whirlpool") some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field."

(emphasis supplied)

Page 17 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

11. Following the dictum of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool (supra), in

Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,4 the Apex court

noted that:

"7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged."

12. In Radha Krishna Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh,5 the

Supreme Court laid down a set of guiding principles governing the

exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,

particularly in the context of availability of alternative remedies,

disputed questions of fact, and the scope of judicial discretion. The

principles that emerge from the decision are as follows:

"(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of

4 (2003) 2 SCC 107 5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334

Page 18 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

(Emphasis supplied)

Page 19 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

13. The present writ petition is squarely maintainable as it concerns the

unconstitutional deprivation of the petitioners' property rights under

Article 300A through allegations of fraudulent alienation and

arbitrary disbursal of compensation; without notice, consent, or due

process. The existence of an alternate remedy does not preclude the

exercise of writ jurisdiction in this case, which falls squarely within

the recognised exceptions namely, violation of natural justice, actions

taken without jurisdiction, and infringement of constitutional rights.

The petitioners, as co-parceners, were unlawfully excluded from both

ownership and compensation without their express consent that

stands affirmed by the very submissions of Opposite Party No. 3.

14. Now, the procedural irregularities shall be addressed in due course,

however, at the outset, it is necessary to consider the foundational

question: whether the properties in question were capable of lawful

alienation in the first place, and if so, whether Opposite Party No. 3

could assert any exclusive right, title, or possession over any specific

plot therein.

15. This inquiry assumes significance in view of the admitted position

that the Schedule "B" land forms part of a consolidated and

unpartitioned ancestral estate, governed by the principles of co-

parcenary under Hindu law. In such circumstances, absent a formal

partition, no individual co-sharer could have conveyed valid title to a

defined portion of the property, and any purported transfer in favour

of Opposite Party No. 3 would, at best, be subject to the undivided

rights of all coparceners, including the petitioners.

Page 20 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

16. It is no longer res integra in transfer of property jurisprudence that a

person cannot convey a better title than what he has. It was laid down

by the Supreme Court in Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs Pamela Mehta and

Others,6 where the testatrix purported to bequeath certain immovable

properties through a registered Will in favour of respondent.

However, the testatrix neither held any right, title, nor interest in the

said properties. The principal bequeathing clause in the Will thus

suffered from fundamental uncertainty and was declared void by the

court. It was observed as under:

"30.6. It remains trite that no one can convey a better title than what he had; as expressed in the maxim: 'Nemo dat quod non habet'. [ See, for example, Narinder Singh Rao vs. Air Vice-Marshal Mahinder Singh Rao & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 425, where the testatrix had bequeathed property in excess to her share and this Court held that the bequest has to be treated only to the extent of the share held by the of testatrix.] The testatrix never had any right over the property belonging to the appellant and could not have conveyed to respondent No.1 any property which was of the ownership of the appellant or which might be acquired or raised by the appellant in future by her own funds. On this ground alone, the Will in question is required to be considered void as per Section 89 of the Succession Act, when the principal bequeathing stipulation in the Will suffers from uncertainty to the hilt."

(Emphasis supplied)

6 AIR 2020 SC 2614

Page 21 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

17. Similarly, in Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic

Diocese,7 on death of their father, the property devolved upon his two

daughters, Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar, the Appellant, and her sister. The

sister sold the property without the consent of the Appellant or a

valid partition. Observing this, the Supreme Court held as following:-

"19. It is a fundamental principle of the law of transfer of property that "no one can confer a better title than what he himself has" (Nemo dat quod non-habet). The appellant's sister did not have the power to sell the property to the vendors of the respondent. Therefore, the vendors of the respondent could not have derived any valid title to the property. If the vendors of the respondent themselves did not have any title, they had nothing to convey to the respondent, except perhaps the litigation."

18. However, a reference should be made to Section 44 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882 which deals with 'transfer by one co-owner'. Plain

reading of section 44 suggests that as such there is no legal embargo

restricting a co-owner from selling his undivided share without

consent of the other co-owners. But it may be noted that in such cases

since no legal partition has been effected, it is not practically possible

to handover possession to the purchaser as his share can't be properly

demarcated.

19. In Ramdas vs. Sita Bai and others,8 the Supreme Court was

considering the case of the appellant who had bought land from a co-

tenure holder one Sudam, of a property of which the defendant no.1,

7 (2022) 7 SCC 90 8 2009 (7) SCC 444

Page 22 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

his sister, Sitabai was co-sharer. The transfer was made without the

consent and knowledge of the defendant/Respondent. The Court

considered the legality of such a transfer and held that Sudam could

not have sold off more than his share nor he could have delivered

possession of the property till its partition. It was held that under the

Transfer of Property Act, a purchaser cannot have a better title than

what his vendor had. The court considered judgements rendered by it

earlier in M.V.S. Manikyala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors.,9 and

Siddeshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubaneswar Prasad Narayan Singh,10 and

the Court observed as follows:-

"15. Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao Vs. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors. [AIR 1966 SC 470], wherein this Court stated as follows:

"Now, it is well settled that the purchaser of a co-parcener's undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he had purchased. His only right is to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment to him of that which, on partition, might be found to fall to the share of the co- parcener whose share he had purchased."

16. It may be mentioned herein that the aforesaid findings and the conclusions were recorded by the Supreme Court by

9 AIR 1966 SC 470 10 AIR 1953 SC 487

Page 23 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

placing reliance upon an earlier judgment of this Court in Sidheshwar Mukherjee Vs. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh & Ors. [AIR 1953 SC 487], wherein this Court held as under:-

"All that (vendee) purchased at the execution sale, was the undivided interest of co-parcener in the joint property. He did not acquire title to any defined share in the property and was not entitled to joint possession from the date of his purchase. He could work-out his rights only by a suit for partition and his right to possession would date from the period when a specific allotment was made in his favour (Emphasis added)

17. In view of the aforesaid position there could be no dispute with regard to the fact that an undivided share of co- sharer may be a subject matter of sale, but possession cannot be handed over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds amicably and through mutual settlement or by a decree of the Court."

20. In Dharmendra Singh Parihar v. Ramgopal Chaudhary,11 the Madhya

Pradesh High Court elucidated that a co-sharer in joint or

unpartitioned property has the legal right to alienate only their

undivided share in the property, but not any specific or demarcated

portion thereof. In the absence of a valid partition or relinquishment

of rights by other co-sharers, any transfer purporting to convey more

than the transferor's own share is invalid to that extent. The relevant

portion is as follows:

11

2023 SCC OnLine MP 293

Page 24 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

"22. The Courts below have rightly held that in absence of any relinquishment of share by the defendants No. 3 to 5, they were also equally entitled for their share and have rightly apportioned the property in eight equal shares amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 2 to 5. It is true that a co-sharer can alienate his share but cannot alienate any specific piece of un-partitioned property. Since the defendant No.2 had only 1/8th share in the property in disputed, therefore, both the Courts below have rightly held that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant/defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 is valid only to the extent of share of defendant No.2. It has been rightly held the sale deed is null and void in excess of share of defendant No.2 and accordingly, the decree of permanent injunction to that extent has also been rightly issued."

21. In Ahamad Khan v. Bhaskar Datt Pandey,12 a division bench of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated the long standing heard a

matter wherein the subsequent purchaser/appellant was transferred

with the entire suit property by the transferor/co-owner via sale deed

despite there existing other co-owners. Moreover, the share of the

transferor was not determined in the suit property. While transferring

the suit property, it was claimed by the transferor that initially his

uncle and father had equal share in the property. Before his uncle's

death, he (uncle) had gifted his share to transferor's father, and after

the death of the transferor's father, it was claimed that the transferor

became the absolute owner of the property as his sisters had also

relinquished her share in the suit property.

12 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5157

Page 25 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

22. The Court held that if the disputed property was indeed Joint Hindu

Family property, a specific piece of land could not be alienated by a

coparcener or co-sharer without partition, and at the most, the

petitioners could only claim a share in the property, not any specific

portion of the land. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow:

"Although a coparcener or co-sharer can alienate to the extent of his share but he cannot alienate any specific piece of land. Therefore, at the most the petitioners can be said to have purchased a share of coparceners/Co-sharer still they are not entitled for any specific piece of land."

23. Thus, it is clear that when there exist various co-owners in the

property, then the subsequent purchaser of the suit property cannot

acquire right, title and interest in the whole of the suit property solely

based on the sale deed executed by one co-owner/transferor. The

transferors who are the brothers and other relatives of the petitioners

was only entitled to share his part in the suit property and not the

entire suit property with the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could

not claim ownership over the entire suit property but only to the

extent of the share held by the transferor.

24. It is thus settled that an undivided share in a joint family property

cannot be sold off by one of the co-sharers without there being any

partition by metes and bounds. Even if there is an assertion that an

oral partition took place, the value of the property involved in the

partition being more than hundred rupees, such oral partition is not

permissible. Registration of such partition was also required. If the

Page 26 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

partition has not been proved by independent and competent

witnesses before the court of law, such partition could not be said to

have taken place at all. The Counsel for the Opp. Party No.3 has

contended that the concerned property has been partitioned in 2011.

However, he does not say in his order that the share of the Vendee

was proved to have been determined by a family partition by such

witnesses.

25. The facts of this case are a glaring example of failure to exercise

jurisdiction by the Revenue Authorities to consider the validity of the

sale deeds set up by the brothers of the petitioner of a joint holding

which had mentioned definite boundaries demarcating the share of

vendors allegedly sold off to the vendee without the family settlement

being proved at any stage of the proceedings.

26. In Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw,13 the Court observed that

the actions of the transferor to sale the entire suit property (where the

other co-owners also had interest) could not bind the other co-owners

as it would tantamount to depriving them from their valid share in

the suit property. The relevant share is produced hereinbelow:

"20. In this view of the matter, the entire property purchased by the two brothers late Salik Ram and late Sita Ram in the year 1959 vide Exh.1 continued to be the joint property in which both of them had equal rights. On their death, the same devolved upon their respective heirs and legal representatives including Brij Mohan, his three sisters on one side and plaintiff-respondent Nandu Lal, his three brothers and five sisters on the other side. Thus, Brij

13 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2456

Page 27 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

Mohan alone was not competent to execute a sale of the entire property in favour of the defendant- appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand, that too without its partition by metes and bounds.

21. Since the suit property has many co-owners including the plaintiff-respondent Nandu Lal and Brij Mohan, the defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand could not have acquired right, title and interest in the whole of the suit property solely on the basis of the sale deed dated 19.05.2006 executed by Brij Mohan. The said sale deed, if at all, in accordance with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be a valid document to the extent of the share of Brij Mohan in the property and defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against Brij Mohan."

(Emphasis supplied)

27. Coming to the facts of the case, the Schedule "B" property is an

admitted co-parcenary asset, forming part of a joint and unpartitioned

estate devolving from Late Nabei Sethy. No formal partition has ever

taken place, and the petitioners, as co-parceners, continue to hold

undivided rights in the property. The transfer of specific plots from

within this joint estate to Opposite Party No. 3, purportedly through

sale deeds executed by certain male co-parceners without the

knowledge or consent of the petitioners, raises serious legal infirmities

and cannot, in law, convey exclusive title or possession.

28. In the absence of a legal partition of the property in question, the

transferors of the impugned sale deeds cannot transfer any defined

portion of joint property nor can the purchaser take possession of

Page 28 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

such specific land. At best, the purchaser steps into the shoes of the

transferor and may seek partition, but cannot claim possession

simpliciter. The law is equally clear that no one can transfer a better

title than they possess. Therefore, any sale deed purporting to convey

specific demarcated land from within unpartitioned coparcenary

property is legally void to the extent it exceeds the seller's undivided

share, and is not merely voidable.

29. In the present case, Opposite Party No. 3 claims to have acquired

absolute rights over defined plots of land by virtue of sale deeds

executed by certain male co-sharers. However, there is no evidence of

any lawful family settlement, registered partition, or mutual

relinquishment by the petitioners. On the contrary, the petitioners

being daughters and coparceners were not made party to any such

transaction.

30. Ordinarily, Opposite Party No. 3, having purchased the undivided

share of certain co-parceners, could have worked out his rights only

by instituting a suit for partition, and any right to possession would

arise only upon specific allotment of share pursuant to such partition.

However, the legal position acquires a more complex dimension when

viewed in light of Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960,

which places restrictions on the transfer of immovable property

belonging to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

31. Given that the petitioners belong to a Scheduled Caste community

and the impugned transfers were made in favour of individuals not

belonging to Scheduled Castes, the legality of the alienation in favour

Page 29 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

of Opposite Party No. 3 is further circumscribed by the statutory

safeguards under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, which

aims to prevent the unauthorized transfer of land from members of

Scheduled Castes to non-SC individuals. Such transactions are subject

to strict scrutiny to ensure they do not result in circumvention of

protective provisions intended to guard against exploitation of

marginalized communities.

32. Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act reads as provided:

"22. Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes-

(1) any transfer of 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 Schedule 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;"

33. Section 22(5) of OLR Act stipulates that the provisions contained in

Sub-section (1) to (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis, to the transfer of a

holding or part thereof a raiyat belong to the Scheduled Caste.

34. Admittedly, permission was erroneously granted by the Revenue

Authorities for the execution of the impugned sale deeds by certain

co-parceners in favour of Balaram Patra and Dillip Kumar Pati, the

former being a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community

and the latter not. This irregularity becomes particularly significant

given the undisputed fact that the Schedule "B" property remains

undivided ancestral coparcenary land, in which the petitioners, who

Page 30 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

also belong to the Scheduled Caste community, continue to hold

subsisting and undivided rights. The sale transactions were carried

out without any lawful partition and in complete disregard of the

petitioners' interests.

35. In such a scenario, where a portion of unpartitioned ancestral

property belonging to Scheduled Caste co-parceners is alienated

without their consent, even if the transferee is also from a Scheduled

Caste background, the transaction still violates the protective spirit of

the law. However, when such land is subsequently transferred to a

person outside the Scheduled Caste community, as in the case of

Dillip Kumar Pati, the legal infirmity deepens. The transfer not only

circumvents the safeguards under the Orissa Land Reforms Act and

other protective statutes, but also raises a serious concern of property

being diverted from a constitutionally protected group to a non-

entitled individual under a veil of procedural legality. Allowing such

transactions to stand would defeat the very object of the legislative

scheme, which seeks to protect SC/ST landholders from exploitation

and unauthorized dispossession. If a single co-sharer, regardless of

community, acting without formal partition and without the consent

of other co-parceners, is permitted to alienate defined plots, it would

amount to unlawful deprivation of rights guaranteed to other co-

parceners, particularly those from historically disadvantaged

communities. Such transactions, particularly when facilitated or

overlooked by revenue officials, strike at the heart of the statutory

protections and cannot be sustained in law.

Page 31 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

36. Based on the legal principles derived from statutory provisions and

established Supreme Court jurisprudence on co-parcenary rights, the

following legal guidelines may be framed for regulating the alienation

of undivided property by members of the Scheduled Castes or

Scheduled Tribes:

(i). A Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe co-parcener cannot

legally transfer or alienate any specific portion of joint co-

parcenary property in the absence of a formal partition among

all the co-parcenors, either through mutual agreement reduced

to writing and registered, or by a decree of a competent civil

court.

(ii). In case such partition cannot be effectuated, any proposed

alienation of a specific property of an undivided share by an

SC/ST co-parcener shall be preceded by the express, informed

consent of all other co-parceners belonging to the SC/ST

community. The transferor must establish that all interested co-

parceners have agreed to such sale.

(iii). Where the transferee does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe, the sale of land by an SC/ST co-parcener shall

be permissible only with the prior permission of the competent

revenue authority, and only after verifying:

a). That the transferor has a defined and partitioned share in the

property;

b). If not, the transferor has obtained express consent of the

other co-parcenors of the specified cumulative property.

Page 32 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

c). That the transfer does not affect the livelihood, dwelling

rights, or subsistence of any other SC/ST co-parcener;

d). That the transaction is not in circumvention of Section 22 or

any other protective legislation.

(iv). Revenue authorities shall not grant permission for alienation

unless:

a). The title of the transferor over the portion proposed to be

transferred is clearly demarcated and partitioned;

b). All co-parceners' rights have been adjudicated or

acknowledged through a registered partition deed or a civil

court decree;

c). Independent inquiry has been conducted to rule out any

suppression of material facts or manipulation of records.

(v). No mutation in favour of the transferee (particularly a non-

SC/ST transferee) shall be effected in revenue records unless the

transferor produces proof of lawful partition and/or consent of

other SC/ST co-parceners, or a declaratory decree recognizing

his exclusive title.

(vi). Any sale or alienation of joint property in violation of the above

principles shall be deemed void ab initio and not merely

voidable. The burden shall lie on the transferee to prove that the

transaction complied with all legal requirements and protected

the interests of other SC/ST co-parceners.

(vii). Where any sale is found to have been made in breach of these

guidelines, the competent authority may suo moto initiate

Page 33 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

cancellation proceedings under the Orissa Land Reforms Act or

other relevant laws, and take steps to restore possession to the

rightful SC/ST co-parceners.

37. Thus, the claim of Opposite Party No. 3 over any specific portion of

the said land is legally untenable, not only due to the absence of

partition by metes and bounds, but also because the transaction runs

afoul of the protective intent underlying Section 22 of the Orissa Land

Reforms Act.

38. In addition to that, Proviso to sub-section 1 stipulates 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 Caste

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.

39. However, the series of transactions culminating in the transfer of

undivided ancestral land to Opposite Party No. 3 raises serious

concerns suggestive of a potentially orchestrated pattern of

irregularity and procedural manipulation. Between 2011 and 2014, a

sequence of high-value sale deeds appears to have been executed,

involving one Balaram Patra, a daily labourer and BPL cardholder

with no discernible financial means, as an intermediary through

whom substantial tracts of land were transferred to Dillip Kumar Pati.

These sale deeds, reflecting consideration amounts such as ₹72,00,000,

₹79,20,000, ₹67,65,000, and even ₹1,23,00,000, notably lack any

reference to banking instruments, payment receipts, or credible

Page 34 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

financial documentation, thereby casting considerable doubt on the

authenticity of the transactions.

40. It is particularly troubling that the original executants of the

impugned sale deeds, namely Tulasi Sethy and Maheswar Sethy, were

both illiterate individuals who affixed thumb impressions on the

documents. There is nothing on record to suggest that adequate

safeguards were put in place to ensure their informed consent or

understanding of the legal consequences of such transactions. This

raises a legitimate apprehension as to whether these individuals were

taken advantage of in the absence of legal or independent assistance.

41. It is difficult to reconcile how a person of limited means, such as

Balaram Patra, could have entered into multiple transactions

involving crores of rupees within a span of months, citing broad and

unsupported justifications like "medical treatment" and "loan

repayment." The subsequent resale of these lands to Opposite Party

No. 3, often in close proximity to the original purchases, gives rise to a

strong suspicion that these transactions were not bona fide sales, but

rather a contrived mechanism to construct a legal facade in favour of

Opposite Party No. 3, particularly in view of the subsequent land

acquisition and disbursement of compensation. While conclusive

findings would require further inquiry, the sequence and structure of

events bear the appearance of a carefully engineered arrangement

designed to exclude lawful co-parceners, including the petitioners.

42. The role of the revenue authorities in this chain of events is deeply

concerning. Instead of exercising vigilance in safeguarding the rights

Page 35 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

of Scheduled Caste co-parceners, the authorities appear to have acted

with undue haste and inadequate scrutiny. Permissions for transfer

were granted without probing into the financial capacity of the

purchaser or the legal status of the land. Mutation entries were made

without notifying or consulting other co-parceners who stood to be

materially affected. These administrative lapses, when viewed

collectively, suggest more than mere negligence; they raise a

reasonable apprehension of institutional complicity or, at the very

least, wilful blindness. The failure of the revenue machinery to

discharge its statutory obligations calls for urgent judicial scrutiny

and accountability.

43. The entire transaction, therefore, reeks of illegality, fraud, and abuse

of process. It is not just a case of a buyer exploiting legal loopholes,

but of an institutional machinery actively failing those it is duty-

bound to protect. The High Court cannot turn a blind eye to what is

effectively a disenfranchisement of Scheduled Caste co-parceners

through bureaucratic complicity and legal subterfuge.

44. In light of the foregoing analysis, it is evident that the transfers

effected in favour of Opposite Party No. 3 are legally unsustainable to

the extent that they purport to convey specific demarcated plots from

an undivided coparcenary estate, and to the extent they disregard the

lawful rights of the petitioners, who remain co-parceners with

undivided interest in the Schedule "B" property. The impugned sale

deeds, executed without partition, without consent, and under highly

Page 36 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

questionable circumstances, cannot confer exclusive ownership upon

the vendee and are, therefore, liable to be declared void ab initio.

45. The consequential benefits flowing from these transactions,

particularly the receipt of compensation pursuant to land acquisition,

must be reconsidered in light of the petitioners' rightful entitlement to

an apportioned share.

46. Accordingly, the petitioners, being Scheduled Caste women from a

vulnerable socio-economic background, cannot be lawfully divested

of their ancestral property through backdoor transactions carried out

without their knowledge or consent. If co-parceners belonging to

Scheduled Castes are not restored to possession of their rightful share

and if mechanisms are not enforced to prevent the exploitation of SC

landholders by economically or socially dominant entities, it would

not only subvert the legislative intent of protective statutes but also

disturb the fragile peace in Scheduled Areas. The law must intervene

to uphold equity, prevent dispossession, and reinforce the

constitutional promise of justice for the historically marginalized.

V. CONCLUSION:

47. Having considered the pleadings, perused the record, and heard

learned counsel for the parties, and for the reasons recorded in the

foregoing judgment, this Court finds that the sale deeds executed in

favour of Opposite Party No. 3 in respect of Schedule "B" property,

being ancestral and unpartitioned coparcenary land, were executed in

contravention of established legal principles and in disregard of the

rights of the petitioners, who are undisputed co-parceners belonging

Page 37 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

to a Scheduled Caste community. The series of transactions leading to

the alienation of land in favour of Opposite Party No. 3 appear to be

tainted with procedural impropriety, lack of bona fide consideration,

and material suppression of facts, rendering the entire chain of title

highly questionable.

48. It is hereby declared that the sale deeds executed in favour of

Opposite Party No. 3, in so far as they pertain to specific and defined

portions of Schedule "B" property without partition by metes and

bounds, are void ab initio and confer no right, title, or interest upon

the said Opposite Party No. 3. Consequently, no interest, possession,

or proprietary entitlement shall be deemed to have lawfully vested in

Opposite Party No. 3 in respect of any part of the Schedule "B" land.

49. All transactions and derivative rights, if any, emanating from the

impugned sale deeds executed between 2011 and 2014 in relation to

the Schedule "B" land are held to be vitiated. Such transactions,

having been made without partition, without consent of all co-

parceners, and in violation of statutory protections applicable to

members of the Scheduled Castes, shall be treated as non-est in law

and shall not form the basis for any mutation, possession, or claim by

any party, private or institutional.

50. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), or any other

agency tasked with disbursal of compensation under the Land

Acquisition Act or the National Highways Act, is hereby directed not

to release any compensation amount to Opposite Party No. 3 or his

nominees in respect of the Schedule "C" land being part of the

Page 38 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

unpartitioned Schedule "B" estate. NHAI may proceed to recover any

award that has been disbursed into the account of Opposite Party

No.3.

51. The NHAI shall instead initiate a process of apportionment, with

notice to and participation of all recorded co-parceners of the original

holder, Late Nabei Sethy, including the petitioners herein. The

disbursement of compensation shall be made strictly in accordance

with the undivided shares as may be determined either through

mutual settlement or through adjudication in appropriate

proceedings.

52. The competent revenue authorities are directed to place the mutation

entries made in favour of Opposite Party No.3 under suspension until

such time as lawful partition is carried out and a final determination

of title is made with respect to the Schedule "B" land.

53. The Collector, Keonjhar is directed to cause an inquiry into the

manner in which permissions for the sale of coparcenary property

were granted without scrutiny, and how mutation and other revenue

entries were effected in favour of a private individual in the absence

of due process and consultation with all interested parties,

particularly members of the Scheduled Caste community.

Appropriate disciplinary proceedings, if warranted, shall be initiated

against the erring revenue officials involved.

54. Liberty is granted to the petitioners and other co-parceners to initiate

appropriate proceedings for partition or declaration of title before the

Page 39 of 40 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19

competent civil court, if so advised, and to seek such consequential

reliefs as may be available in law.

55. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. No

order as to costs.

56. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th July, 2025/

Page 40 of 40