Back
1994 Supreme(Ori) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G.B. Pattnaik, B.N. Patnaik, JJ.
DAITARI NAIK AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
TAHASILDAR-CUM-REVENUE OFFICER AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 169 of 1991
Decided On : 14-07-1994
P.K. Mishra, N.C. Pati and A.K. Nanda, for the Appellant; Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent
Brothers who have not separated can constitute a body of individuals under Section 37(a) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act if they have conjointly engaged in an income-productive activity and have a meeting of minds to do so.
Headnote:
LAND CEILING - DETERMINATION OF CEILING SURPLUS - BROTHERS CONSTITUTING A BODY OF INDIVIDUALS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 37(A) AND 37(B) OF THE ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT - RELEVANCE OF JOINT HINDU FAMILY CONCEPT.
Fact of the Case:
Five brothers, Jagabandhu, Radhamohan, Bada Duryodhan, Sana Duryodhan, and Arjuna, inherited land from their father, Nrupa Naik, who died before the commencement of the Ceiling Chapter under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The Revenue Officer initiated a suo moto ceiling proceeding against the brothers, treating them as a joint family. The petitioners, representing each brother's branch, objected, claiming separation since 1964. The Revenue Officer rejected their objections and determined the ceiling surplus based on one ceiling unit for the entire family. The appellate authority remanded the matter for reconsideration of the separation issue. On remand, the Revenue Officer again concluded that there was no separation and determined the ceiling surplus accordingly. The petitioners challenged this order in revision, and the revisional authority held that the brothers constituted a body of individuals and were entitled to one ceiling unit as a person under Section 37(a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the finding of the forums below that there was no separation among the brothers prior to the commencement of the Ceiling Chapter. However, it held that the forums below erred in concluding that the brothers constituted a body of individuals without examining whether they had conjointly engaged in an income-productive activity and had a meeting of minds to do so, as required by the definition of a body of individuals under Section 37(a) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the brothers constituted a separated family or a joint family for the purpose of determining the ceiling surplus under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 2. Whether the brothers could constitute a body of individuals under Section 37(a) of the Act, even though they did not constitute a family under Section 37(b) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the question of separation was a pure question of fact, and the findings of the forums below on this issue were immune from interference by the court in a writ of certiorari. 2. The court interpreted Section 37(b) of the Act, which defines 'family,' as an artificial definition that is not the same as a joint Hindu family. Therefore, the brothers, whose father had died before the commencement of the Ceiling Chapter, could not constitute a family under Section 37(b). 3. The court further interpreted Section 37(a) of the Act, which defines 'person,' to include a body of individuals. The court held that the brothers could constitute a body of individuals if they had conjointly engaged in an income-productive activity and had a meeting of minds to do so. 4. The court distinguished an earlier Division Bench decision of the court, which had held that members of a family could not form an association or a body of individuals under Section 37(a) of the Act. The court held that this decision was erroneous and that the brothers could constitute a body of individuals if they satisfied the requirements of Section 37(a).
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders of the forums below and remitted the matter back to the Revenue Officer for reconsideration of the question of whether the brothers constituted a body of individuals in accordance with the ratio of the decision of the court in Mohan Lal's case. The court directed the Revenue Officer to provide the parties with an opportunity to lead further evidence on this issue.
JUDGMENT :
G.B. Pattnaik, J. - Both these writ applications arise out of a common revisional order and involve common question of fact and law and were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The determination of ceiling in a ceiling surplus proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act by the statutory authorities is under challenge in these writ applications.
2. One Nrupa Naik had five sons. Jagabandhu, Radhamohan, Bada Duryodhan, Sana Duryodhan and Arjuna. Jagabandhu the eldest son had predeceased Nrupa Naik and Nrupa Naik also died prior to the commencement of the Ceiling Chapter under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Jagabandhu's branch is represented by his son Daitari (petitioner No. 1). Radhamohan's branch is represented by his son Jadumani (petitioner No. 2). Bada Duryodttan's branch is represented by his son Chinmaya (petitioner No. 3), Sana Duryodhan's branch is represented by his son Pranakrishna (petitioner No. 4) and Arjun is opp. party No. 5 in OJC 169/91 and petitioner in OJC 217/91. The Revenue Officer initiated a suo mow ceiling' proceeding u/s 42 of the Act against the four petitioners . Arjun treating them to be the members of the joint family. The petitioner filed their objection, alleging that five sons of Narupa who were major and married by the appointed date, had been separated since the year 1964 and, therefore, they could not constitute a family The Revenue officer rejected the said objections and came to the conclusion that there had been no partition in the family and, therefore, the five branches were to be treated as the members of one family and as such, were entitled to one ceiling unit. This order of the Revenue Officer is dated 26-11-1988. Against the aforesaid order the petitioners carried an appeal which was registered as OLR Appeal No. 9/89. The appellate authority by his judgment dated 8-8-1989 set aside the order of the Revenue Officer and remanded the matter to him for fresh disposal after consultation with the local committee to find out whether there had been any separation in the family as major married sons prior to the appointed date. After the matter went back on remand, the Revenue Officer re-disposed of the ceiling proceeding by order dated 5-4-1:90. annexed as Annexure coming to the conclusion that the land-holders constituted one family as they were recorded jointly in 1978-7d. The aforesaid order of the Revenue Officer under Annexure-1 was assailed in appeal and the petitioners tiled OLR Appeal No. 2/90 and opp. party No. 5 filed OLR Appeal No. 3/90. Both these appeals ware dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 6-10-1990 as per Annexures- 2/a and 2/b. Two revision cases were preferred against the same, one at the instance of the petitioners which was registered as OLR Revision Case No. 17/90 and the other by oop. party No. 5 which was registered as OLR Revision Case No. 19/90. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that neither Nrupa nor his wife were alive oh the appointed date but all the same five branches could be treated to be a body of individuals and as such, a person u/s 37(,a) and, there- fore, were entitled to an area of ten standard acres, that is, one ceiling unit. The orders of the Revisional authority which have been annexed as Annexure-3/a and 3/b are being challenged in the two writ applications.
3. Mr. P. K. Mishra the learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the findings of the forums below oh the question of separation and contends that each branch should have been held to be separated. The question whether there had been separation between the five sons of Nrupa as major married sons prior to the appointed date is a pure question of fact. Alt the three forums having considered all relevant materials and having rejected the plea of separation, the same is immune from interference by this Court in a writ of certiorari. Mr. Mishra appearing for the petitioner could
