SAHADEV NAYAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination by this Bench is whether a person who had not filed his return under Section 40-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") could claim to have a right of option and choose the land to be retained by him after determination of the ceiling by the Revenue Officer in exercise of the power conferred on him by section 42 read with section 43 of the Act.

(2.) The aforesaid question along with a contention of the petitioner that the finding relating to the quantum of ceiling surplus land as determined under the provisions of the Act was untenable came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. The Bench did not accept the contention of the petitioner relating to the untenability of the quanutm of the ceilign surplus land inasmuch as it did not accept the stand of the petitioner that a separate ceiling ought to have been fixed for one Gundicha who was a son of the landholder. The other contention related to the question noted above. As the proceeding had been initiated suo motu by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahsildar, the point for examination was whether in a suo motu proceeding the landholder had the right to exercise option in respect of lands which he desired to retain.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on Ghanashyam Rout v. Revenue Officer (O. J. Cs 896 and 897 of 1976 disposed of on 3-5-77) in which the contention advanced on behalf of the opposite parties, that the landholder has no right to indicate his choice regading retention of the parcels of lands in excess of the ceiling area in a suo motu proceeding, was not accepted. The Bench dealing with the present case, however, felt that in view of the amendment of section 43 by Act 44 of 1976 which inserted the words "having a right to do so" after the words "selection made by the person concerned" indicated that this right was available to the person who had filed their returns under section 40-A of the Act. The Bench also thought that such a right is not available under any other provision of the Act. Being of this view, it felt that where a person fails to submit a return under section 40-A of the Act, he cannot have the right for selection with regard to the specific parcels of land which he wishes to retain. As, however, a contrary stand was taken in the aforesaid decision of this Court, the Bench was of the view that it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for resolving the dispute. It is in these circumstances that the matter has been placed before us and we have heard Mr. Pal for the petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties.