Back
1976 Supreme(Ori) 37
High Court Of Orissa
R. N. Misra And P. K. Mohanti, JJ.
ARAKHITA BISOI - Appellant
Versus
REVENUE OFFICER - Respondent
O. J. C. 698 Of 1976
Decided On : 07/15/1976
P.K.Misra, R.C.PATNAIK
An appellate order passed under Section 44(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, is revisable under Section 59 of the Act.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY - APPELLATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 44 (2) OF THE ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1960 - REVISABLE UNDER SECTION 59 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the appellate order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer under Section 44(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, on the ground that it was open to revision under Section 59 of the Act, but the revisional authority rejected the application, holding that it was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellate order under Section 44(2) of the Act was revisable under Section 59 of the Act. The Court relied on the amended provisions of Sections 44 and 59 of the Act, which clarified that the finality of the appellate order under Section 44(2) was subject to revision under Section 59.
Issues: Whether the appellate order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer under Section 44(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, was open to revision under Section 59 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the provisions of Sections 44, 45, 58, and 59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, and held that the use of the phrase 'shall be final' in Section 44(2) meant that no further appeal lay against the appellate decision, but it did not bar the maintainability of a revision under Section 59 of the Act. The Court also relied on various judicial precedents to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the Additional District Magistrate dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable and directed him to dispose of the revision in accordance with law.
R. N. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari. The original order of the Revenue Officer, the appellate order of the sub-divisional Officer and the revisional order of the Additional District magistrate-opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 respectively are assailed.
( 2 ) THOUGH several averments were made in the writ application, a lone contention has been pressed at the hearing. It is claimed that the appellate order of the Sub-divisional Officer (Annexure 2) was open to revision under Section 59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act')and yet the revisional authority (opposite party No. 3)' has rejected the application, saying that the same was not maintainable. As jurisdiction vested in the revisional authority and yet he has declined to exercise the same, his order is vitiated. Thus, the only question for examination is as to whether the impugned appellate order was open to revision before the opposite party No. 3.
( 3 ) BY order dated 1-11-1974, the Revenue Officer refused to accept the claim of partition, found that the petitioner's family consisted of five members in all and, therefore, petitioner was entitled to a ceiling area of ten standard acres. Accordingly he directed the revised confirmed statement indicating the surplus lands to be published. An appeal was carried against the said order and was dismissed on merit on 26th of April, 1975 (Annexure 2 ). The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Additional District Magistrate who held that the appellate order was not subject to revision in view of the provision regarding finality contained in Section 44 (2) of the Act. He relied upon the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, in the case of Bhagmani Devi v. State of Orissa, (1976) 42 Cut LT 529.
( 4 ) TO resolve the dispute as to whether the impugned appellate order was revisable, it is necessary mainly to consider the provisions in Sections 44, 45, 58 and 59 of the Act. These provisions have been amended by Orissa Act 29 of 1976 which came into force with effect from 19th May, 1976. For convenience, we extract below juxtaposed to each other the various unamended and amended provisions:-Final statement of ceiling and 44. Final statement of ceiling and surplus surplus lands: -lands:
(1) On the termination of the (1) On the termination of the proceedings under Section 43 proceedings under Section 43 the the Revenue Officer shall by Revenue Officer shall by order order confirm the draft confirm the draft statement with statement with such such alterations or amendments alterations or amendments as as may have been made therein may have been made therein under the said section. under the said section.
(2)An appeal against the order of (2) An appeal against the order of the the Revenue Officer under sub-Revenue Officer under sub-section section (1) confirming the (1) confirming the statement, if statement if presented within presented: -thirty days from the date of the order shall lie to the prescribed authority and subject to the result of such appeal, if any, the orders of the Revenue Officer shall be final. (a)by any person aggrieved by the order within thirty days from the date of the order; or
(3)The draft statement as confirmed or as modified in appeal, if any, shall be published by the Revenue officer in such manner and for such period as may be prescribed, and on the expiry of the said period the statement shall be final and conclusive, a copy whereof shall then be furnished to the person concerned free of cost and another such copy to such authority, if any, as may be prescribed. 45. Surplus lands to vest in 45. Government. With effect from the beginning of the year next following the date of the final statement referred to in subsection (3) of section 44 the interests of the person to whom the surplus lands relate and of all land-holders mediately or immediately under whom the surplus lands were being held shall
