SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Ori) 10

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B. K. NAYAK, J.
D. Bhakta Priyamba @ D. Bhaktapriya – Petitioner
Versus
Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa & others - Opp. Parties
W.P. (C) No.15237 of 2013
Decided On : 08.01.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner:M/s. Mr. A.K. Nanda & G.N. Sahu
For Opp. parties :Additional Government Advocate

Headnote:

OLR Act - Land Classification - Section 59(2) - Section 2(5-A), Section 2(13) - Summary: The court discussed the classification of land under the OLR Act and the definition of 'irrigated land' as per Section 2(13). The court emphasized the requirement of assured irrigation from a government or corporate irrigation project for land to be classified as 'irrigated land'. The court found that the Member, Board of Revenue relied on incomplete statements and made presumptive observations, leading to an incorrect conclusion. The court quashed the impugned order and restored the order of the Additional District Magistrate.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the classification of land under the OLR Act, with the petitioner contesting the classification of their land as irrigated.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Member, Board of Revenue relied on incomplete statements and made presumptive observations, leading to an incorrect conclusion. The court quashed the impugned order and restored the order of the Additional District Magistrate.

Issues: The key issue was the classification of the petitioner's land under the OLR Act, specifically whether it qualified as 'irrigated land' and the reliance on incomplete statements by the Member, Board of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of assured irrigation from a government or corporate irrigation project for land to be classified as 'irrigated land' under the OLR Act. The court also highlighted the importance of considering complete statements and avoiding presumptive observations.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and restored the order of the Additional District Magistrate, allowing the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

B. K. NAYAK, J.

Order dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure-2) passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in OLR Revision Case No.2 of 2007 on a motion made by the Collector, Rayagada under Section 59 (2) of the OLR Act, has been assailed in this writ petition.

2. The background of the case is that OLR Case No.10 of 1974 was initiated against the petitioner by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Rayagada. The Tahasildar disposed of the case on 26.02.1976 classifying all the lands of the petitioner except Ac.3.415 in Khata No.6/9 of village-Jayaramguda as Class-II lands on the ground that the lands were having irrigation facilities from the Rayagada Gedda Lift Irrigation Society and allowed 12.00 standard acres of land to be retained by the petitioner and directed vesting an extent of Ac.18.91 dec. of village Balijhola as surplus. The petitioner’s appeal and revision filed against the order of the Tahasildar were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed OJC No.2165 of 1981 before this Court. By order dated 28.08.1991, this Court remanded the Revision Case No.7 of 1992 to the Additional District Magistrate, Rayagada with direction for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with the observation and direction given in an identical writ petition bearing OJC No.2163 of 1981 filed by another person. The observation in OJC No.2163 of 1981 made by this Court was to investigate if the lands were irrigated land as defined in OLR Act since the statements of the Nagabali Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society, which took over the Irrigation Project concerned, was confusing. Therefore, the direction was given to find out on verification of the records of the society, if the lands of the petitioner were being provided with water for the purpose of irrigation by the Society. The parties were also allowed to adduce further evidence in support of their cases, if they chose.

3. As per the R.O.R. the case lands are recorded as ‘Dry’ land. The Additional District Magistrate after such remand made efforts to obtain the records of the Nagabali Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society and the Ex-President of the Society reported that all records were in a mutilated condition, had been eaten away by white-ants and the damaged records were burnt. The A.R.C.S., Rayagada reported that till 1993 the Society was being managed by M/s. J.S. Co., Rayagada and on formation of new Board of the Society, the records were transferred to the President of the Society, but no charge list of transfer of records could be produced. It was also reported by the A.R.C.S. that the Board of the Society had also been wound-up. Having failed to get any assistance from the President of the Society and the A.R.C.S. and due to non-availability of society’s records, the Additional District Magistrate directed the Tahasildar, Rayagada and the Assistant Engineer, OLIC, Rayagada to enquire and intimate about the classification of the case lands. The Assistant Engineer, OLIC reported that there was no Lift Irrigation Project in village-Barijholla and the case lands were not getting irrigation facilities, but the lands in Plot Nos.32/1 and 32/3 in village-Jayaramguda with an extent of Ac.1.45 dec. were getting irrigation facilities from the Lift Irrigation Corporation. The Tahasildar, Rayagada on field visit reported that crops like Kandul, Mandia and Bailo are grown over the case lands, but did not indicate as to whether the lands were irrigated or not. The Additional District Magistrate also made a field visit personally with the Tahasildar and his staff and found that in village-Barijholla crop like Kandul has been grown as ‘Dry’ crop in most of the plots leaving some fallow land and that there was no trace of irrigation facilities to those lands. Similarly, lands of Khaliguda were also lying fallow having no irrigation facilities. Therefore, the Additional District Magistrate ultimately came to the conclusion that only Ac.1.45 dec. of land of the petitioner




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top