The mandatory provisions relating to general notice and consultation with the local committee in a proceeding under S. 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, must be strictly complied with. Failure to comply with these provisions renders the proceeding invalid.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) JAYADEB Biswal (petitioner in O. J. C. No. 493 of 1978) filed an application on 15-1-1977 before the Revenue Officer, Nimapara, under S. 36-A, Orissa Land Reforms Act (for short, "the Act") for a declaration that the land, 1. 10 acres in extent, appertaining to plot No. 1665 under Khata No. 308 and plots Nos. 1638 and 1640 under Khata No. 386 in Mouza Biswalsahi in the district of Puri which was under his cultivation as a tenant was non-resumable and for determination of fair and equitable rent and the compensation payable by him. The application was registered as O. L. R. Case No. 2704 of 1976. Notice was issued to Kalicharan Paikray (petitioner in O. J. C. No. 467 of 1978) arrayed as the landlord. A proclamation inviting objections was also issued. By order dated April 19, 1977, the Revenue Officer called for a report from the Revenue Inspector and directed consultation with the local committee. By May 17, 1977 neither report from the Revenue Inspector nor from the Local Committee had been received. So, the case was directed to be called on May 20, 1977. On that day, the following order was passed:"both parties are present. This is a case under S. 36-A, O. LR. Act, filed by Jayadeb Biswal s/o. Indramani of Biswal Sahi against Kali Charan Paikra s/o. late Udayanath Routray. The O. P. admits the petitioner as tenant. Due proclamation has been issued and no objection has been received. Local Committee has been consulted. Verified the R. O. R. and other documents and found that O. P. has got right, title over the suit land. In the circumstances the suit land as scheduled below is declared to be non-resumable subject to payment of compensation of Rs. 708/- to be paid in five equal instalments with interest of 4% per annum of the unpaid balance. The first instalment falling due on 20-5-77. The land declared as 'b' class land. Schedule village: Biswal Sahi khata - 386 plot 1638 - A0. 59 Khata 308 1640 - A0. 17 plot 1665 - area A0. 42 area - total area A1. 18 decimals f and E 386 Khata, plot 1638 - A0. 59 f and E Rs. 2. 20 1640 - AO. 17 rent Rs. 0. 90 308 Khata plot 1665 - A0. 42 pronounced in the open Court today, the 20-5-77. Sd/-20-5-77"

( 2 ) ON July 23, 1977, Benga Bewa (petitioner in O. J. C. No. 122 of 1980) filed an application for recall of the order dated May 20, 1977, aforesaid and for rehearing of the case on merits. She alleged that she had purchased the property by sale deed dated February, 9, 1954 and was in possession and enjoyment since then. The proceeding was collusive in nature and a decision had been obtained on distorted facts by suppressing the true facts and notice.

( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the parties on the application. Though Jaydeb and Kalicharan entered appearance through counsel, Jaydeb alone filed objection controverting the allegations made by Benga. The Revenue Officer held that there was no due proclamation and by the time the decision was taken on May 20,1977, there was no valid report of the local committee before the Court. Having so held, he observed that the matter was a fit one for reference to the Board of Revenue for exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, through proper channel. This decision of the Revenue Officer dated February 14, 1978 is under challenge in O. J. C Nos. 467 and 493 of 1978 filed by Kalicharan and Jaydeb respectively. Benga has also moved this Court in O. J. C. No. 122 of 1980 for the nullification of the order dated May 20, 1977.

( 4 ) AS common questions are involved, the three cases have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 5 ) MR. K. C. Jagadeb Ray, the learned counsel for the petitioners Kalicharan and Jayadeb, urged that the Revenue Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by recalling the order dated May 20, 1977 and making a reference to the Board of Revenue for exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S. 59 (2) of the Act. He submitted that the provisions were scrupulously followed while disposing o