The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasoned order and appropriate exercise of mind in deciding original proceedings, as well as the availability of clear statutory remedy.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition involves the following prayer:-

'The petitioners, therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued;

i) quashing the order as has been passed under ANNEXURE-5;

ii) if the opposite parties failed to show cause or show in sufficient cause to make the said rule absolute; and iii) to pass such other order/orders or to issue such other writ/writs as would afford complete relief to the petitioners.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound every pray.'

2. Factual background involved herein is that a suo motu ceiling surplus proceeding bearing O.L.R Case No.62 of 1974 was initiated by the Tahasildar in the name of one Subash Chandra Pradhan @ Samantaray, which was, however, dropped on the observation that on the basis of revised report of the R.I. it was found that the family held total extent of land 19.16 standard acre. The occupier was in Raiyat status, also remains one of the ground. While the matter stood thus O.L.R. Case No.59 of 1974 was instituted against the father of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 6, which also came to be dropped on 28.09.1974. It appears, there is also initiation of further ceiling proceeding against the father of the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.1 bearing in O.L.R. Case Nos.60 of 1974 and 61 of 1974 respectively, which also came to be dropped on 28.09.1974. While the matter stood thus in 1986 vide Annexure-1 the Tahasildar-cum- Revenue Officer, Khallikote initiated O.L.R Case No.1 of 1986 against Dandapani Pradhan @ Samantaray, where Dandapani Pradhan @ Samantaray appeared and claimed on the basis of family partition dated 1.03.1956 as well as transfer of the land by gift and sale prior to 1970. The Tahasildar, however, rejected the contentions of Dandapani Pradhan resulting filing of the O.L.R Appeal No.4 of 1988 vide Annexure-2. Appeal appears to have been allowed on 31.08.1988 holding that the O.L.R (Ceiling) Case No.1 of 1986 is barred by principle of Res-judicata. Challenging the aforesaid order undisputedly there is no revision U/s.59(I) of the OLR Act, 1960 read with Rule 44(2) of the OLR Rules, 1965. However after long gap of 19 years, in the year 1992 a proceeding U/s.59(2) of the OLR Act was initiated by the Collector, Ganjam being registered as OLR Revision Case No.6 of 1992 impugning the order dated 28.09.1974 passed in OLR Case No.59 of 1974 on the file of the Member, Board of Revenue, which appears to have been allowed vide Annexure-5, but with an order of remand to the Revenue Officer, Khallikote who was directed to proceed de novo with the case after clubbing of three Original Cases vide 59/74, 61/74 & 62/74 but involving the Opposite Party No.4 therein one Dandapani Pradhan. It appears, after the above remand order the Revenue Officer clubbed all the above three proceedings by re-registering the case as OLR Case No.1/86 and treating the same to be one ceiling case. Petitioner alleges that said OLR Case has been illegally decided contrary to materials available on record thereby directing the R.I. Sandhamula to take over the ceiling surplus land free from encumbrances after removing the crops raised over the disputed land vide Annexure-5 impugned herein.

3. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner challenged the impugned order at Annexure-4 on the premises that the proceeding is grossly barred by time. Keeping in view the series of litigations concluded in the meantime Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further also contended that in absence of challenge to the ceiling proceedings earlier initiated and ended in appeal vide Annexure-2 U/s.58(A) of the Act. The proceeding U/s.59(2) of the OLR Act was not entertainable. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate further contended that undertaking of exercise U/s.59(2) of the OLR Act w