The finality of orders passed under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, and the interpretation of provisions relating to exemptions, tanks, and urban lands in determining the ceiling area.

R. N. MISRA, C. J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this application is to the order of the Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and the further orders in appeal and revision passed under the Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was the ex-Ruling Chief of the State of Bamra and held extensive properties. As the petitioner's claims for settlement of certain lands which had vested under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act were still to be disposed of under Chapter II of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, when the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1973 came into operation from 2-101973, he furnished a provisional return on 31-12- 1973 under Section 40-A of the Act. Orissa Land Reforms Ceiling Case No. 30 of 1974 was instituted on the basis of the return and a draft statement was published on 3-9-1975 under Section 43 (1) of the Act. The petitioner preferred objection to the draft statement and contended that Ac. 72. 09 decimals of land were held by an industrial and commercial undertaking and were exempt from ceiling under Section 38 (b) of the Act. He also contended that there were certain tanks with an area of a little more than six acres which were exclusively used for pisciculture and were not connected with agricultural operations and such tanks were also not to be taken, into account for determining the ceiling. The petitioner's third contention was that he had lands and bouses located in certain areas situated within the Deogarh Municipal limits and since such lands were not connected with agricultural operations they were also not to be taken into account. The Revenue Officer negatived all the contentions of the petitioner except holding that Ac. 72. 09 decimals of land were exempt under Section 38 (b) of the Act and he called upon the petitioner to make a formal application. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sub-divisional Officer asking for relief on other scores. Though under Section 44 (2) (b) of the Act an appeal at the instance of the State Government lay against the order of the Revenue Officer, no appeal was filed and the Revenue Officer's direction exempting Ac. 72. 09 decimals of land while determining the ceiling was allowed to become final. Sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act makes the confirmed statement final and the order of the Revenue Officer unless modified in appeal receives statutory finality. The appellate authority, even though there was no appeal, looked into the propriety of the Order of the Revenue Officer in regard to Ac. 72. 09 decimals of land and observed :-

"so the Tahasildar is advised to reconsider his decision in the light of the above discussion and take steps to make necessary amendment in the confirmed draft statement. "

He rejected all the other contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon carried a revision to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. All the contentions referred to above were re-canvassed before the revisional authority. The revisional authority sustained the appellate order except giving a direction that as far as homestead lands were concerned, the case would be remanded for enquiry as to whether the homestead was used for agriculture or was ancillary to agriculture.

( 3 ) BEFORE us, Mr. Mohanty for the petitioner raises three questions, namely (1) In the absence of an appeal the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to go into the question of exemption of Ac. 72. 09 decimals under Section 38 (b) of the Act. The order of the Revenue Officer having become final the appellate authority's jurisdiction to deal with the question was not open to entertain that point. (2) Lands located within the urban area were exempt from consideration for computing the ceiling unless such lands were found to be connected with agricultural operations; and (3) Tanks were not connected with agriculture and since pisciculture was not within the definition of agriculture, the tanks claimed as exempt should have been kept ou