Back
1985 Supreme(Ori) 98
High Court Of Orissa
D. M. PATHAK, S. C. MOHAPATRA
JAGANNATH KAR - Appellant
Versus
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CUTTACK - Respondent
O. J. 372 Of 1982
Decided On : 04/16/1985
D.P.SAHU, P.K.MISHRA, S.S.MOHANTY
The Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to distribute land under Section 51 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 before the finalization of the proceeding and such distribution is a nullity.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - CEILING SURPLUS LAND - RESTORATION OF PROPERTY - JURISDICTION OF REVENUE OFFICER - DISTRIBUTION OF LAND BEFORE FINALIZATION OF PROCEEDING - NULLITY - RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY TO LANDHOLDER - WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUED TO REVENUE OFFICER TO RESTORE PROPERTY TO PETITIONER - ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1960 (ACT 16 OF 1960), SS. 42, 44(1), 51, 59.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's land was declared surplus under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. He appealed the decision, and the appellate authority set aside the order declaring his land surplus. The Revenue Officer refused to restore the land to the petitioner, claiming that it had already been distributed to landless persons under Section 51 of the Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Revenue Officer's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to distribute the land before the finalization of the proceeding and that the distribution was therefore a nullity. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to have his property restored to him and that the Revenue Officer's refusal to do so was a non-exercise of power.
Issues: 1. Whether the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to distribute the land before the finalization of the proceeding? 2. Whether the distribution of land was a nullity? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his property restored to him?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to distribute the land before the finalization of the proceeding because the order declaring the land surplus had been set aside by the appellate authority. The court relied on the decision in ILR (1977) 2 Cut 334 Naresh Chandra v. Revenue Officer-Cum-Addl. Tahasildar, Angul, which held that until the revision had been disposed of, the statement could not be made final and would not become conclusive and there would be no vesting of surplus lands in Government. 2. The court held that the distribution of land was a nullity because the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to make it. The court relied on the decision in 56 Cut LT 463 (Sankarsan Misra v. State of Orissa), which held that on the success of the land-holder the property has to be restored. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his property restored to him because the distribution of land was a nullity and he had acquired no right, title or interest in the land.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Revenue Officer to restore the property to the petitioner.
S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution arising out of a proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).
( 2 ) SUO motu proceeding under S. 42 of the Act registered as Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1974 was initiated by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Salipur to determine the ceiling surplus lands of the petitioner. The draft statement was confirmed under S. 44 ( 1) of the Act on 14-11-1975 declaring that the petitioner has 3. 504 acres of surplus land. The petitioner preferred an appeal registered as O. L. R. Appeal No. 42 of 1975 under S. 44 (1) of the Act. By order dt. 26-4-1976, the appeal was dismissed on the sole ground that the statement in the meantime has been finally published for which no appeal could be entertainable. Immediately thereafter, 2. 815 standard acres of land was distributed to opposite parties 3 to 14 under S. 51 of the Act. Revision of the petitioner under S. 59 of the Act was held not to be maintainable. The petitioner approached this Court in O. J. C. No. 754 of 1976 to quash the orders of the statutory authorities. Opposite parties Nos. 3 to 14 were also made parties to the writ application. This Court quashed the appellate order and the revisional order and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits by order dt. 23-6-1977. In compliance with the aforesaid direction of this Court, the appellate authority heard the appeal and by his order dt. 6-11-1978 held that the petitioner did not hold any land to be surplus beyond the ceiling limit fixed under the Act and as such the order of the Revenue Officer was set aside.
( 3 ) AFTER the decision in appeal, the petitioner made an application before the Revenue Officer for restoration of the property. The Revenue Officer, however, refused the prayer of the petitioner on the following finding:"land to the extent of Ac. 2. 864 dec. has already been distributed among the landless persons leaving a balance of Ac. 0. 188 dec. As the landholder did not implead the lessees as third party, hence the land could not be returned to the landholder (as) decided by Hon'ble High Court decided in O. J. C. No. 867 of 1976. . . . . . . . . "there being no other efficacious remedy available, the petitioner has approached this Court for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
( 4 ) MR. P. K. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted : (I) The Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to distribute the lands under section 51 of the Act before finalisation of the proceeding and as such the distribution being a nullity opposite parties 3 to 14 do not get any interest in the land on the basis of such distribution. (ii) The order of the Revenue Officer determining the ceiling surplus land having been vacated by the appellate authority, the distribution of land is a nullity and it is the duty of the Revenue Officer to restore back the property to the petitioner which has been distributed without any authority of law as the same would amount to confiscation of petitioner's property. (iii) Opposite parties 3 to 14 having no valid title to the property are to be prohibited from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. In support of his submissions Mr. Misra placed reliance on ILR (1977) 2 Cut 334 Naresh Chandra v. Revenue Officer-Cum-Addl. Tahasildar, Angul, 56 Cut LT 463 (Sankarsan Misra v. State of Orissa), O. J. C. No. 53 of 1980 decided on 21-3-1985 Reported in (1985) 1 Ori Law Rev 457. Smt. Arda Mahalaxmi v. District Magistrate and Collector, Ganjam and O. J. C. No. 635 of 1979 decided on 25-3-1985 : (1985) 59 Cut LJ 537), (Harihar Panda v. State of Orissa ).
( 5 ) MR. D. P. Sahoo, the learned Standing Counsel has brought to our notice the decision in O. J. C. No. 867 of 1976 decided on 21-9-1976, Parsuram Sahu v. Revenue Officer, Nuapada relying upon which the Revenue Officer held that the land could not be retu
