Back
1985 Supreme(Ori) 130
High Court Of Orissa
D. M. PATHAK, S. C. MOHAPATRA
KHIRADHAR PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
O. J. 635 Of 1978
Decided On : 06/27/1985
P.K.MISHRA, R.K.Patra
The revisional power of the Board of Revenue under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, is wide in its amplitude, and the Board has full powers to pass appropriate orders for ends of justice.
Headnote:
ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1960 - SECTION 59 - REVISIONAL POWER OF BOARD OF REVENUE - SCOPE AND AMBIT - EFFECT OF FINDING OF SEPARATION OF FAMILY MEMBER ON DETERMINATION OF CEILING SURPLUS LAND.
Fact of the Case:
The Revenue Officer initiated a proceeding under Section 42 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, to determine the ceiling surplus lands in the hand of the family of Khiradhar Patel. The Revenue Officer disbelieved the partition among Khiradhar and his three sons and declared 5.52 standard acres as surplus land. The petitioners approached the Land Reforms Commissioner to move the Board of Revenue to revise the orders under Section 59(2) of the Act. The Board of Revenue found that the eldest son Purna Chandra had separated before the 26th day of September, 1970, and accordingly he would not be taken as a member of the family of Khiradhar.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the scope of revision of an appellate order under sub-section (1) and any order under sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Act is the same. The revisional authority has full powers to pass appropriate orders for ends of justice. The Board of Revenue erred in law by confining the examination only to the point on which it was moved either by the Collector of the district or by the Land Reforms Commissioner. The court also held that the Board of Revenue ought to have set aside the order of the Revenue Officer, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authorities since the Revenue Authorities under Section 37(b) of the Act are required to determine the effect of separation in status.
Issues: 1. What is the scope and ambit of the revisional power of the Board of Revenue under Section 59(2) of the Act? 2. What is the effect of the finding of the Board of Revenue that being separated before the 26th day of September, 1970, Purna Chandra is not a member of the family of Khiradhar?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scope of revision of an appellate order under sub-section (1) and any order under sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Act is the same. The revisional authority has full powers to pass appropriate orders for ends of justice. The Board of Revenue erred in law by confining the examination only to the point on which it was moved either by the Collector of the district or by the Land Reforms Commissioner. 2. The Board of Revenue ought to have set aside the order of the Revenue Officer, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authorities since the Revenue Authorities under Section 37(b) of the Act are required to determine the effect of separation in status.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Board of Revenue and directed the Revenue Officer to proceed with the ceiling proceeding on the basis that the family of Khiradhar as defined under Section 37(b) of the Act consists of five members and Purna Chandra is not a member of the family of Khiradhar.
S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of a proceeding under Chap. IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).
( 2 ) THE Revenue Officer, Sundargarh initiated a suo motu proceeding under S. 42 of the Act for determining the ceiling surplus lands in the hand of the family of Khiradhar Patel, petitioner No. 1. Khiradhar objected to the draft statement on various grounds one of them being that there has been a partition among Khiradhar and his three sons, petitioners 2 to 4 since the year 1963. The Revenue Officer disbelieved the partition. He came to the conclusion. ". . . . . . . . . . I hold that the younger sons are not separate from the date of execution of the partition deed. . . . . . . . . . "
( 3 ) TAKING the family to be consisting of five members, the Revenue Officer allowed 10. 68 standard acres to be retained and declared 5. 52 standard acres as surplus land. This order was confirmed in an appeal under S. 44 (2) of the Act and in revision under S. 59 ( 1) of the Act. The petitioners approached the Land Reforms Commissioner to move the Board of Revenue to revise the orders in exercise of the power under S. 59 (2) of the Act. Being satisfied that the family of Khiradhar consists of six persons, i. e. , Khiradhar (Petitioner No. 1), his wife (Baidehi), his three sons, namely, Purna Chandra (petitioner No. 2), Upendra (petitioner No. 3) and Govind (Petitioner No. 4) and his married daughter Sumitra, the Land Reforms Commissioner moved the Board of Revenue to revise the order under S. 59 (2) of the Act.
( 4 ) AT the time of hearing, petitioners submitted before the Member, Board of Revenue to consider the matter on merits on all points and on the only illegality pointed out by the Land Reforms Commissioner. The Board of Revenue did not accept the contention and held :". . . . . . . . . . WHILE the revisional power is not restricted and is of wide amplitude there is a clear distinction between revision by the prescribed authority under sub-sec. (1)of S. 59 and revision by the Board of Revenue under sub-sec. (2 ). The jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue cannot be invoked by parties to proceedings however aggrieved they may be with the orders of the other authorities. The object of specifying that the Board of Revenue can be moved only by the Collector of a District or by the Land Reforms Commissioner is to discourage the Board of Revenue being turned into a second forum in revision. It is not the intention that parties to proceedings who have the opportunities of appeal and of revision by the prescribed authority will use the device of filing a petition before the Collector or the Land Reforms Commissioner to secure a further revision by the Board of Revenue. . . . . . . . . . "the Board of Revenue found that the eldest son Purna Chandra had separated before the 26th-day of September, 1970 and accordingly he would not be taken as a member of family of Khiradhar. The Member, Board of Revenue found that the family of Khiradhar consisted of five members only excluding Purnachandra and accordingly upheld the order of the Revenue Officer permitting the family to retain ten standard acres.
( 5 ) WHILE Mr. P. K. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of the Board of Revenue, Mr. R. K. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate justified the order. On the rival contentions, the following questions arise for consideration. (A) What is the scope and ambit of the revisional power of the Board of Revenue under S. 59 (2) of the Act? (b) What is the effect of the finding of the Board of Revenue that being separated before the 26th day of September, 1970, Purna Chandra is not a member of the family of Khiradhar. 5. Question No. (a)section 59 reads as follows :-"59 (1) The prescribed authority may, on application by any party aggrieved by any order passed in an appeal under any provision of this Act fil
