Back
1989 Supreme(Ori) 118
High Court Of Orissa
D. P. MOHAPATRA, ARIJIT PASAYAT
BATAI CHITTAMMA - Appellant
Versus
REVENUE OFFICER-CUM-TAHASILDAR, BERHAMPUR - Respondent
O. J. C. 177 Of 1983
Decided On : 08/18/1989
B.B.RATHOD, M.MISHRA, P.K.BHUYAN, S.K.DAS GUPTA
The distribution of surplus land before the disposal of an appeal or revision is not necessarily irregular or illegal. Restitution of the land to the landholder is not an automatic process and could be refused in appropriate cases where there had been distribution of surplus land. The allottees are proper parties to the proceedings and should be impleaded, as they have a say in the matter and could be affected by any order passed.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Ceiling Surplus Land - Distribution of Surplus Land - Restitution - Impleading of Allottees as Parties - Legal Principles and Judicial Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, holding that she had land in excess of the permissible ceiling. She sought to quash the orders and obtain a writ of mandamus to drop the proceedings against her, deliver possession of the land taken over, and declare that she was not a ceiling surplus landholder.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the distribution of surplus land before the disposal of an appeal or revision was not necessarily irregular or illegal. The Revenue Officer's action in distributing the land was unexceptionable in the circumstances, as the appeal was not presented within the prescribed time and the Revenue Officer waited till the expiry of the appeal period before directing distribution. The court also held that restitution of the land to the landholder was not an automatic process and could be refused in appropriate cases where there had been distribution of surplus land. The allottees were proper parties to the proceedings and should be impleaded, as they had a say in the matter and could be affected by any order passed.
Issues: 1. Whether the revenue authorities have the power to distribute ceiling surplus land before the disposal of the appeal and/or revision? 2. Whether there can be any order for restitution after the land has been distributed if the proceeding in which the surplusage is found as irregular or illegal? 3. Whether the allottees are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding subsequent to the allotment, if the determination of surplusage is challenged?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The distribution of surplus land before the disposal of an appeal or revision is not necessarily irregular or illegal. The Revenue Officer's action in distributing the land was unexceptionable in the circumstances, as the appeal was not presented within the prescribed time and the Revenue Officer waited till the expiry of the appeal period before directing distribution. 2. Restitution of the land to the landholder is not an automatic process and could be refused in appropriate cases where there had been distribution of surplus land. 3. The allottees are proper parties to the proceedings and should be impleaded, as they have a say in the matter and could be affected by any order passed.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed as it was devoid of merit. The court found that the findings of the authorities below were findings of fact and there was no scope for interference. The allottees had not been impleaded in the writ application, and their non-impletion rendered the petition non-maintainable.
PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') holding that she had land in excess of the permissible ceiling. She has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the said authorities as contained in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 and for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs to drop the proceeding against her and to deliver possession in respect of the land taken over, and to declare that she is not a ceiling surplus landholder.
( 2 ) THE factual backdrop of the case is as follows :-a proceeding was initiated under S. 42 of the Act against one Batai Mohan. Draft statement was prepared on the basis of information as obtained from the settlement authorities and the same was published on 29-7-1975. The notice issued to the aforesaid Batai Mohan returned back with a remark that he was dead. The petitioner, who is the widow of Batai Mohan, participated in the proceeding. The proceeding was continued against the petitioner. The petitioner through her Advocate submitted objection on 14-10-1976, indicating that there was incorrect recording in the draft statement in respect of land situated in village Baulojholi which was sold away in the year 1972 and that the same should have been excluded from the computation of the ceiling area. The classification of the land as Class II wet land was disputed on the ground that the land in reality was Class III rain-fed land. After considering the objection and after hearing the Advocate for the petitioner, the draft statement was confirmed and it was held that she was in possession of Ac. 10. 833 of land of various categories equivalent to 4. 030 standard acres and that the said land being over and above the ceiling limit was to vest in the State Government free from encumbrances. The order was pronounced in open Court on 5-1-1977. That very day the petitioner submitted her option statement. The draft statement was finalised on 5-2-1977 by the Revenue Officer (opposite party No. 1) with a finding that the appeal period was over and there was no intimation of any appeal having been filed. The confirmed statement was directed to be published by affixing a copy in the notice board for 15 days. A copy of the final statement was served on the petitioner by the process server on 22-2-1977. There is some amount of dispute raised as to whether the said copy was really served. We shall deal with this aspect later on. The surplus land in question was distributed to landless persons by order of the Revenue Officer dated 4-3-1977 and the allottees were inducted on the land. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on 7-7-1977 and received the same on 30-7-1977. An appeal was filed before opposite party No. 2 on 19-1-1979. A petition for condonation was filed stating that the petitioner was absent from her village and was ailing and, therefore, there was delay in presenting the appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjan (opposite party No. 2) holding that the same was barred by limitation. He disbelieved the plea of the petitioner that there was no service of the copy of the final statement on her on 22-2-1977 and that the signature was not genuine. He found that the petitioner had not signed and on the other hand there was a thumb impression of her which was obtained in the presence of one witness. He also did not accept the grounds indicated for the delayed presentation of the appeal holding that there was no material to support the contention raised. The appellate order (Annexure-3) passed on 2-4-1979 was assailed before the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Southern Division, Orissa, Berhampur in Revision Case No. 180 of 1982. The said authority on consideration of the materials came to hold that the appellate authority had rightly dismissed the appeal and that there was no acceptable ground for interference wit
