RAM PRASAD MOHAPATRA Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ application has been filed for quashing Annexures -1,2 and 4.

(2.) THE present petitioner had filed O.L.R. Case No. 13 of 1982 before opposite party No. 3 under Section 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the 'O.L.R. Act') in respect of Ac. 8.930 decimals of land in khata No. 40 of mauza Betaguda on the allegation that the land had been given on Bhag to B. Appalaswamy and R. Appa Rao, who in their turn had inducted some sub -tenants. It is further alleged that on the death of B. Appalaswamy and R. Appa Rao, the legal heirs continued as Bhag tenants. The application under Section 15 of the O.L.R. Act was filed for giving direction to the Bhag tenants to pay Rajbhag. Pursuant to the direction of the Revenue Officer, a sum of Rs. 1,394.60 was deposited. The present petitioner filed O.L.R. Appeal No. 26 of 1987 before the present opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 while setting aside the order of the Revenue Officer, remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer for fresh disposal with a direction that the Revenue Officer should make a spot enquiry and give opportunity to both parties of further hearing. The said order of remand was challenged by the present petitioner revision, wherein it was contended that the appellate authority should have disposed of the matter on merit and should have passed necessary orders regarding eviction/payment of Rajbhog. It is to be noticed that the order of the appellate authority had not been challenged by the present opposite parties 4 to 17 in the writ application, The revisional authority, present opposite party No. 1, while negativing the contention of the present petitioner and dismissing the revision, observed that the application under Section 15(1 )(C of the O.L.R. Act was not maintainable and had been properly rejected by the Revenue Officer. Hence, the present writ application.

(3.) IT appears that during the pendency of the writ application there was a direction to the opposite parties to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/ -as the opposite parties were in possession. However, since the private opposite parties did not comply with the said direction in spite of several opportunities, ultimately, the present petitioner was appointed as the receiver of the dispute property and subsequently direction was given to demarcate the land, deliver the possession and render police assistance, if necessary.