GOURAHARI MAHANTA Vs. TAHSILDAR BONAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this application is to the order of the Revenue Officer (opposite party No. 1) determining the ceiling surplus lands in a suo motu proceeding under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. An appeal against the order was not entertained and the revisional authority also refused to interfere in the matter.

(2.) One Gurucharan left behind three sons Malu, Laxmicharan and Shyamsundar. Malu is dead and Gourahari is his son, Gourahari, Laxmicharan and Shyamsundar are petitioners 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In the Settlement Record-of-Rights of 1940-41, Malu, Laxmicharan and Shyamsundar were recorded jointly and in the 1974 Settlement, their property was described to be 35.06 acres of land including the homestead. As early as 3-4-1945, there was an amicable partition by metes and bounds in the family and the property had been divided into three equal shares, each brother getting 10.50 acres. A memorandum of allotments was drawn up and the three branches began enjoying the property allotted to their respective shares exclusively. On 10th of March, 1974, Malu died. On 20th of December, 1975, the Revenue Officer started a suo motu proceeding under Section 42 of the Act against Malu and directed the Revenue Inspector to furnish a report about the extent of properties and details thereof. Even though no report had been given by the Revenue Inspector, petitioners coming to know of the initiation of the proceeding appeared before the Revenue Officer on 20th of April, 1976, and relied upon the memorandum of partition and the fact of division by metes and bounds long before the relevant date and took the stand that none of the petitioners was in possession of more than the statutory ceiling limit. Ry order dated 24th of April, 1976, the Revenue Officer discarded the plea of partition by holding:-

(3.) Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 30 of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965, provide :