Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.K. Patra, R.K. Dash, JJ.
NITYANANDA SATPATHY AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 215 of 1992
Decided On : 22-07-1996
ORISSA ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - SECTION 38-B - REVISION OF DECISIONS OR ORDERS - POWER OF BOARD OF REVENUE - REASONABLE TIME - DELAY IN EXERCISING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, ex-intermediaries of an estate, challenged the proceedings initiated by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (OEA Act), to revise an order passed by the OEA Collector in 1964 settling certain lands in their favor. The petitioners argued that the revisional authority had failed to exercise its power in a reasonable manner within a reasonable time, as more than 25 years had elapsed since the original order was passed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Board of Revenue's power to revise decisions or orders under Section 38-B of the OEA Act had to be exercised in a reasonable manner within a reasonable time. The court found that the delay of more than 25 years in initiating the revisional proceedings was unreasonable and had resulted in unsettling a settled position, potentially creating new rights and liabilities among various parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the Board of Revenue could exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 38-B of the OEA Act after such a long lapse of time. 2. Whether the petitioners' failure to raise the issue of delay before the Board of Revenue barred them from challenging the proceedings in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principle that powers conferred to effectuate a purpose must be exercised in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable time. It noted that the absence of a specific time limit in Section 38-B did not mean that the Board of Revenue could exercise its revisional power indefinitely. 2. The court rejected the argument that the petitioners' failure to raise the issue of delay before the Board of Revenue precluded them from challenging the proceedings in the writ petition. It held that the issue was not merely a question of propriety but a fundamental question of whether the Board of Revenue had exercised its power in a reasonable manner.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire proceedings before the Member, Board of Revenue, including the impugned order setting aside the OEA Collector's order of settlement. It allowed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
R.K. Patra, J. - In this application under Arts. 225 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings in O. E. A. Revision Case No. 15 of 1989 at Annexure-1 and the final order dated 1-1-1992 at Annexure-4 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa (opp. party No. i)error.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the ex-intermediaries of Paikapada Maj estate under Touzi No. 268 in the district of Puri were owners in khas possession of lands measuring Ac. 659.37 decimals under khata No. 23, in mouza Gadabangoro and Ac. 167.10 decimals under khata No. 153 in mouza-Badagaon. The estate came to vest in the State Government on 25-8-1953. The then Deputy Collector, Puri in O. E. A. Case No. 8/43-54 illegally restrained the ex-intermediaries from felling and removing casuarina trees from the disputed lands and transferred the same to the Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Division, Khurda for management during the pendency of the aforesaid case. On 10-8-1957 the case was finally disposed of wherein the Deputy Collector held that the lease granted by the ex-intermediaries to one Radha Mohan Mukhopadhaya and two others was benami transaction in view of the fact that they(ex-intermediaries) were themselves in khas possession of the disputed lands on the date of vesting. Thereafter, the ex-intermediaries applied to the Tahasildar-cum-O. E. A. Collector, Nimapara under Sections. 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for settlement of the lands in their favour which came to be registered as O. E. A. Case No. 83/481 of 1959-60. By order dated 17-6-1964 at Annexure-H/2, the O. E. A. Collector settled the lands with the applicants as the raiyats on payment of rent to the State from the date of vesting. Despite the success of the ex-intermediaries as indicated above, the Divisional Forest Officer kept the disputed lands under his management which compelled them to file a writ application (OJC No. 455 of 1970) impleading State of Orissa, Collector, Pun, Divisional Forest Officer and Ors. as opposite parties. This Court by order dated 9-11-1970 allowed the writ application with a direction that the lands with plantations should be restored to the ex-intermediaries on payment of maintenance charges to the Divisional Forest Officer Pursuant to the said direction, the ex-intermediaries paid the maintenance charges and the possession of the lands was restored to them on 7-5-1971. Thereafter, a ceiling proceeding under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (O. L. R. Case No. 4 of 1975) was initiated against the ex-intermediaries for determination of ceiling surplus lands. The said case finally terminated on 26-5-1979 in which the ex-intermediaries were allowed six ceilings and lands measuring Ac. 122.00 were found to be surplus which vested in the State Government. The Government distributed the surplus lands to landless persons. The petitioners in the year 1983 purchased Ac. 201.00 from mouza Gudubangoro and Ac. 3.00 from mouza Badagaon from the ceiling holders. It is the allegation of the petitioners that long after the settlement of lands, the Collector Puri made a reference u/s 38-B of the Act alleging illegalities committed by the O. E. A. Collector in settling the lands and the Member. Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack by the impugned order at Annexure-4 set aside the settlement.
3. The opp. parties 2 and 3 (State of Orissa through Collector, Puri and Tahasildar-cum-O. E. A Collector, Nimapara) have filed counter affidavit in support of the impugned decision.
The only contention urged by Shri S. Mishra-2 is that although there is no time-limit for revising any decision or order u/s 38-B of the Act, it should be done within a reasonable time and O. E. A. Revision Case No. 15 of 1989 having been initiated 25 years after the order of revision having been passed after 25 years, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. Shri B. B. Mohanty, learned coun
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
