The Board of Revenue has jurisdiction u/s 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 to revise an order passed by a subordinate authority in purported exercise of jurisdiction u/s 8(1) of the Act, which the subordinate authority did not possess.

JUDGMENT :

R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 14-7-1981 as per Annexure-6 rendered in O. E. A. Revision Case No. 31 of 1978, by way of judicial review in exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction.

2. Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, opp. party No. 3; was the intermediary of the disputed property--115 decimals in extent appertaining to plot No. 2223, under Khata No. 1 of mouza Bhubaneswar. The petitioner made an application for grant of permanent lease. The Trust Board of opp. party No. 3 decided to grant the lease and fixed the salami and rent payable. The petitioner paid Rs. 1200/- on 25-11-1972. She paid rent and ownership certificate was granted to her on 24-3-1973. See has alleged that by acceptance of rent, she acquired tenancy right in respect of the property and upon the vesting of the estate with effect from 18-3-1974 by operation of law, she held the land as a tenant under the State. Pursuant to the grant of ownership certificate to her in the year 1973, she had constructed a compound wall around the land and constructed two rooms over it.

3. In August, 1976, Vesting Case No. 11 of 1976 was started by the Tahasildar-cum-Orissa Estates Abolition Collector, Bhubaneswar, on an application filed by her u/s 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act') for settlement of the land. No objection was filed from any quarter despite issue of notice to the members of the public and the Trust Board. On consideration of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Bhubaneswar and the patta salami receipt, rent receipts and the ownership certificate granted by the Trust Board of opp. party No. 3, the Tahasildar-cum-O. E. A. Collector settled the land with the petitioner u/s 8(1) of the Act and she was directed to deposit the arrear land revenue and the usual salami. The petitioner deposited the salami, back rent and Amin's fee and rent schedule was issued to her and a direction was given for correction of the Record-of-Right, vide Annexures-1, 2 and 3. In 1973, on a motion made on behalf of opp. party No. 1, invoking the exercise of power of suo motu revision vested in the Board of Revenue u/s 38-B of the Act, as per Annexure-4(a), O. E. A. Revision Case No. 31 of 1978 was started. It was urged on behalf of opp. party No. 1 that the land was communal in nature having been recorded as Hatasthali in the Record-of-Rights, the lease was hit by Section 3 of Act 1 of 1948, the Tahasiladar had no jurisdiction to function as a Collector under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and no enquiry was made by him if the sanction of the Commissioner of Endowments as required by Section 12 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1964 had been done. Pursuant to notice, the petitioner filed her reply as per Annexure-5 contending, inter alia, that tenancy right was created in her favour by the Trust Board by decision to grant lease, acceptance of salami and rent and by grant of the ownership certificate. Having been a tenant under the ex-intermediary, her tenancy right was protected by Section 8(1) and pursuant to her application for settlement of the land made under Sec 80), order dated 17-12-1977 was passed by the Estates Abolition Collector in Vesting Case No. 11 of 1976 and salami and arrears at rent were paid by her, as directed, and rent schedule was granted to her. She stated that suo motu revisional power was invoked under a misconception that the Tahasildar-cum-Estates Abolition Collector exercised powers u/s 6(i). After the vesting, settlement was made under the provisions of the Orissa Land Settlement Act, 1962 and under notification dated 29-11- 1974 all Tahasildars were authorised to settle land and dispose of applications. In exercise of the said power, the Tahasildar settled the land and fixed the rent taking into account the fact that the petitioner was a tenant under opp. party No. 3 before ve