NARASINGHA DANI Vs. COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application arises out of a ceiling proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Petitioner has prayed therein to quash the Annexures -1, 2 and 3, which are orders of the Revenue Officer, appellate authority and the revisional authority respectively, in the said proceeding,

(2.) A suo motu proceeding was initiated against the father of the Petitioner and a draft statement was issued indicating that he was possessing an area of Ac. 45.45 decimals of land which was categorised as Class III and Class IV lands The aforesaid area was calculated to be equivalent to Ac. 12.45 standard acres. The family of the father of the Petitioner, according to the information gathered, consisted of himself, his wife Tara, and his only son Narasingha Dani, who is the present Petitioner. The father of the Petitioner filed an objection stating that his son (the present Petitioner) is major, married and separated before the appointed date i.e. 26 -9 -1970. He also disputed the classification of certain lands. The Revenue Officer after considering the said objection held that the present Petitioner was no doubt major and married before 26 -9 -1970 when Chapter IV of the Act came into force; but did not accept that he was separated from his father as alleged. A deed of partition dated 30 -12 -1967 which was drawn up in a stamp paper, but not registered, was produced before the Revenue Officer in evidence of the plea of partition. The Revenue Officer did not rely on the said document, mainly on two grounds; (i) the document having not been registered the same cannot be held to be a valid document in view of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act; (ii) the aforesaid document having not been produced before the settlement authorities it must be looked into with suspicion. The Revenue Officer, therefore, held that the father and mother of the Petitioner along with the present Petitioner himself constituted a "family" within the meaning of Section 37(b) of the Act and the said family is entitled to retain 10 standard acres of land. He did not accept the plea that there was a mistake in the classification of the land. Consequently the draft statement issued was confirmed without any modification by his order dated 31 -8 -1976, copy of which is Annexure -1 to the writ application.

(3.) MR . Padhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailed the aforesaid orders mainly on the ground that the document dated 30 -12 -1967, is in effect a deed of family settlement which merely records a previous partition effected between the father and the son and, therefore, is not required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. On that basis it has been urged that the Revenue Officer the appellate authority and the revisional authority have erred in law in rejecting the aforesaid document as valid for want of registration. He pas also argued that if the aforesaid document is accepted as valid and genuine the present Petitioner would be entitled to a separate ceiling unit and, therefore, the orders of the authorities concerned holding that the family of the Petitioner holds, more than the ceiling area is liable to be quashed. Giving our anxious consideration to the point at issue, we are unable to accept the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Orissa Land Reforms Act (Orissa Act 16 of 1960) received the assent of the President on 17 -10 -1960. According to Sub -section (3) of Section 1, the Act was to come into force with effect from the date appointed by the State Government by a notification in that behalf. The State Government notified the Act to be effective from 10 -10 -1965. Section 19 of the Act provided the modes by which partition among the co -sharers can he effected, namely; (a) by a registered instrument, (b) by a decree of a Court, (c) by an order of the Revenue Officer in the manner prescribed on mutual agreement. the father of the Petitioner in his application did not mention as to when the partition was effected, but he relied upon an unregistered document dated 30 -12 -1967 styling the same as a deed of family settlement to prove the partition effected between him and his son die present Petitioner. No evidence appears to have been led before the Revenue Officer as to when the partition between the father and the son took place. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Revenue Officer and the higher authorities, namely, the appellate Court and the revisional Court proceeded on the -basis that the partition was effected by the aforesaid document dated 30 -12 -1967. Since Section 19 of the Act does not recognise a partition by any other mode other than the three modes mentioned therein, the authorities concerned, in our opinion, made the correct approach to the problem by not accepting the, said document as a deed of partition because the same is not in conformity with the Section 19 of the Act. That apart the genuineness of the said, document is not free from doubt. It is not a registered document and is, therefore, capable of being created at any time. The fact that the said document was not produced before the settlement authorities, is a circumstance which is available to be utilised to doubt the genuineness thereof. From the analysis made above, the conclusion is irresistible that neither the Petitioner nor his father has been able to prove that they were separated fro In each other by the appointed day. This element having not been proved the Petitioner is bound to be taken as one of the members of the family or his father in the ceiling proceeding. Consequently all of them together will be entitled to one ceiling unit which has been rightly given to them by the Revenue Officer and confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority.