Odisha HC Lets Tribal Sellers Of Urban Homestead Land Seek Tahasildar’s Farming-Use Opinion After Deed-Registration Refusal

The petitioners, claiming to be Scheduled Tribe recorded tenants, presented sale deeds of land recorded as Gharabari and situated within the Sambalpur Municipal Corporation area for registration. The Sub-Registrar refused to accept the deeds because the proposed purchasers were non-Scheduled Tribe persons and the petitioners had not obtained permission under Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960 (“OLR Act”).

The petitioners argued that the land’s urban location and non-agricultural character meant the OLR Act did not apply; the State maintained that urban inclusion alone did not remove the requirement for permission.

The petitions were heard together, with the Court considering the coordinate Bench’s decision in Hemanta Naik v. State of Odisha.

Section 22 of the OLR Act governs transfers of land by Scheduled Tribe members, while Section 73(c) was invoked by the petitioners in support of their argument concerning land situated in an urban area.

Relying on Om Prakash Agrawal v. Batara Behera, 1999 (3) SCC 231, the Court noted that the OLR Act applies to land used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes, irrespective of where the land is situated; the land’s usability is therefore a question of fact requiring assessment in each case.

The Court also followed the coordinate Bench’s approach in Hemanta Naik v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 27920 of 2023 & batch, which directed a fact-finding inquiry into the agricultural usability of the land.

The Court rejected the State’s attempt to disavow Hemanta Naik, noting that the State had neither challenged nor sought review of that judgment or the subsequent orders made under it.

On the alleged per incuriam character of that decision, the Court found that Hemanta Naik had considered Om Prakash Agrawal and had directed an inquiry consistent with its principle that agricultural usability—not merely the land’s location—was material.

The Court agreed that usability must be determined independently for each parcel and declined to depart from the coordinate Bench’s reasoning.

Each petitioner was given liberty to apply to the concerned Tahasildar for an opinion on the land’s usability for agricultural purposes in the present scenario. The Tahasildar was directed to provide that opinion within 60 days of the application; depending on the opinion, the petitioners could approach the Sub-Collector/Registering Officer again.