Principles of natural justice, including fair procedures, cross-examination opportunities, and adherence to the Evidence Act, apply to judicial proceedings under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, even in the absence of specific rules.

R. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these writ applications are petitions for certiorari. Several orders passed by the Revenue Officer, the appellate authority and the revisional authority under the Orissa Land Reforms Act are impugned in these writ petitions. The oetitioner in both the writ petitions is the same person but some of the opposite parties are different

( 2 ) OPPOSITE party No. 3 In O. J. C. 802/1970 and opposite parties 3 and 4 in O. J. C. 803 of 1970 separately applied to the Revenue Officer (opposite party No. 2 in both the writ petitions) for determination of their respective tenancv interests in the lands in question under the petitioner and the other opposite parties -- Padma Dibya and Baidei Dei. The petitioner and his relations opposed the claim by saying that the applications before the Revenue Officer were made mala fide by persons who had no connection with the lands in question. Their possession as tenants was seriously disputed.

( 3 ) THE Revenue Officer held local enquiry on 25-12-1966. It is stated that he received some evidence from the people who were present at the spot and made some confidential enquiry. On the basis of such materials he found the claim of tenancy to be genuine in both the cases. Appeals were carried against the aforesaid order in both the cases, and as the appeals proved unsuccessful, revisions were also carried to the Additional District magistrate of Puri. He upheld the orders of the original authority as affirmed in appeal. These writ applications are, therefore, filed for quashing of the several orders by the authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act.

( 4 ) THE contesting tenants have not appeared in this Court in spite of service of process. Mr Jaaadeb Rav for the petitioner claims that it was not competent for the revenue Officer to hold any confidential enauirv. In fact the appropriate section under the Land Reforms Act does not conceive of any such confidential enquiry. As regards the evidence, the Revenue Officer had stated:-" i held the spot enauirv On 25-12-1966 and in course of mv enauirv I came to the conclusion that the lands owned by Lokanath Paniarahl in mauza Sarua are not entirely being cultivated by his legal heirs but some portion of the lands has been given to others on bhag basis. Qn taking evidence from the people who were present at the spot and on my confidential enauirv I came to understand that the petitioner Sauri muduli is in personal cultivation of the land and in the suit year also. I believe, there is some truth in it" in regard to this aspect of the matter, the appellate authority stated:-"on a perusal of the records of the Tower Court it appears that the petitioner Sauri Muduli under the provisions of the O. L. R. Act moved the Revene Officer for determination of the non-resumable lands in respect of his tenancy over the plot No. 878. area C. O. 415 and pending disposal of that case the petitioner filed one application before the revenue Officer for protecting his tenancv etc. under Section 15 (1) (b)of the O. L. R. Act. The Revenue Officer after receipt of the application started a case under section 15 (7) of the O. L. R. Act, 1965, declared the petitioner as tenant over tha suit land and disposed of the dispute. . . . . . So far as the procedure of this enquiry is concerned, the Revenue Officer appears to have conducted the enquiry perfectly according to the provisions of law and I do not find anything wrong there. " The order of revision shows the treatment of the aspect of the matter thus: ". . . . . . . . . on 25-12-1967 the Revenue Officer had made a local inspection and also examined some boundary witnesses and has come to the finding that the opposite party Sauri Muduli was in actual cultivating possession of the suit land. "

( 5 ) APART from what had been stated in the writ petitions, an affidavit in each of the cases has been filed by tha petitioner to say:--"that during the inspection also the usual method recognised in law was not at