JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU — This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.6.1999 passed by the Revenue Officer, Chandbali, in O.L.R. Case Nos.12/98 and 13/98, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 9( 1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Opposite parties 4 and 5 filed an application under Section 9 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (for short ‘OLR Act’) for declaration that they were tenants in respect of Ac.0.27 decs of land each appertaining to Plot No.299, Khata No.134 (Chaka) of Mouza Balab¬hadrapur out of a total area of Ac.0.53 decs. The Revenue Officer called upon the R.I., Motto to conduct a spot enquiry and submit his report. He also directed to issue general proclamation invit¬ing objections. The petitioners being the owners of the aforesaid land filed their objection, inter alia, taking the stand that opposite parties 4 and 5 were neither tenants under them nor did they construct and/or reside in any dwelling house on the disput¬ed lands. In order to establish their case, opposite parties 4 and 5 adduced evidence. Relying upon the said evidence and the report of the R.I., Motto and also after spot enquiry, the Reve¬nue Officer by the impugned order arrived at a conclusion that opposite parties 4 and 5 satisfied all the ingredients of Section 9(1) of the Act and the said section being a beneficial one should be considered liberally. On the basis of such conclusions, the claim of opposite parties 4 and 5 was allowed and lands measuring Ac.0.20 decs in favour of opposite parties 4 and 5 each from out of Ac.0.53 decs were directed to be settled by the impugned order.

2. According to Mr. S.Mishra-2, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-land owners, none of the ingredients of Section 9 of the OLR Act were fulfilled by opposite parties 4 and 5. It is submitted that the Revenue Officer committed an apparent error by taking into consideration the report submitted by the R.I., Motto, who was not examined as a witness in the proceeding. It is further submitted that the Revenue Officer acted illegally and with material irregularity in settling the lands with oppo¬site parties 4 and 5, alleged tenants, on the ground that the Act has been enacted for the benefit of tenants. Mr. Mishra, further submitted that neither there was any pleading nor any material were produced before the Revenue Officer to arrive at a conclu¬sion that all the basic ingredients of Section 9(1) of the OLR Act had been fulfilled. In short, according to Mr. Mishra, the order suffers from the vice of non-consideration of materials available on record and consideration of the materials which had no evidentiary value and it is a fit case where the impugned order settling Ac.0.20 decs of land each in favour of opposite parties 4 and 5 should be quashed.

3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 4 and 5, at the other hand, forcefully submitted that the said opposite parties were tenants under the father of the peti¬tioners from generations. They have constructed two dwelling houses over the disputed lands and they are staying therein. They are also continuing as tenants under the petitioners in respect of the said portions of lands. Mr. Rath, relying upon the spot inquiry report submitted by the R.I., Motto and the inquiry conducted by the Revenue Officer, submitted that the said inquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioners and it was found during spot visit that opposite parties 4 and 5 are occupying the dwelling houses constructed over the disputed lands. He further relied upon the evidence of the witnesses examined by him and submitted that the report was corroborated by the statement of witnesses made before the Court. It is submitted that the peti¬tioner landlord is estopped from challenging the evidentiary value of the report submitted by R.I., Motto as he failed to file any objection before the authority.

He has relied upon two decisions being in th