LAXMINARAYAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The enunciation of law made by a Bench of this Court while disposing of a batch of writ applications in O.J.C. Nos. 2001 to 2008 of 1983 (Pradyumna Panda v. State of Orissa) disposed of on 28-9-1988 with regard to the power of the Member, Board of Revenue, in entertaining and disposing of a revision under sub-sec. (2) of S. 59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") having been doubted by a latter Division Bench, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. The Member, Board of Revenue, while disposing of the revision came to the conclusion that he could not accept the reference made by the Collector as the satisfaction of the Collector was inadequate. Having not accepted the reference, he had, however, further observed that it was open to the Collector to examine the case afresh giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties and make a reference if he was satisfied that injustice had been done. This observation made by the Member, Board of Revenue, was held to be without jurisdiction by the earlier Division Bench while disposing of the batch of writ applications in O.J.C. Nos. 2001 to 2008 of 1983 . It was held by their Lordships that having dismissed the revision, the Member, Board of Revenue, had no further jurisdiction to require the Collector to make fresh enquiry for any of the purposes including a further report, if any, to the Board of Revenue and the Collector of the district could not assume jurisdiction to enquire into the matter afresh which power the Act did not vest in the Collector. When the present writ application came up for hearing before another Division Bench to which I was a party, prima facie, we were not in agreement with the view expressed by the earlier Bench, referred to supra. On the other hand, it has been held that the power of Board under sub-section (2) of S. 59 of the Act is intended to remedy the defects which can be brought to the notice of the Board by the Collector and the said power is quite wide and there has been no fetter on the same. Therefore, if the Board reaches a conclusion that the Collector has not applied his mind to the materials on record and has made a reference to the Board, there cannot be any bar for the Board to observe that it would be open for the Collector to examine the materials afresh and make a further reference if he is so satisfied. But instead of raking a different view and disposing of the writ application, the latter Bench had directed that the writ application should be placed before a larger Bench and that is how the matter was heard by a Full Bench.

(2.) The moot question that arises for consideration is whether the Board while exercising its power under sub-section (2) of S. 59 of the Act, not being satisfied to accept the reference made by the Collector, can still observe that it is open for the Collector to re-examine the matter and make a further reference if the Collector is so satisfied. The answer to this question would depend upon an interpretation of S. 59(2) of the Act and the content and extent of power that is vested in the Board of Revenue by the said provision.

(3.) Before examining the different provisions relevant for the purpose of interpreting the power of the Board under sub-section (2) of S. 59 of the Act, it would be necessary to notice briefly the facts of the case. One Dadhibaman Panigrahi had made an application under S. 36-A of the Act before the Revenue Officer for settlement of 4.52 acres of land in mauja Lauguda appertaining to plots Nos. 101 (area 2.26) and 106 (area 2.26) alleging that the said land is non-resumable and is in possession of the applicant as tenant and praying that fair and equitable rent be determined and compensation payable in respect of the same under S.28(1) of the Act be also assessed. That application was registered as O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1975. The Revenue Officer disposed of that application by order dated 14-11-1975 holding the land to be non-resumable and further holding the applicant to be a tenant in respect of the land and directing that Patta be issued in favour of the applicant. The said applicant Dadhibaman Panigrahi sold the land to the petitioner under a registered sale-deed dated 15-6-1982 and the petitioner remained in possession of the same after paying due consideration. The District Collector made a reference to the Member, Board of Revenue, invoking his jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of S. 59 of the Act after examining the case records of O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1975 being of the view that the tenancy claimed by said Dadhibaman was a fake one and, therefore, the order of the Revenue Officer was unsustainable. The Member, Board of Revenue, by the impugned order did not accept the reference as he was of the opinion that the Collector had made the reference on the basis of the report of the Aditional District Magistrate without applying his mind to the same and, therefore, the Collector's satisfaction could not be held to be a reasonable one. Though he did not accept the reference and rejected the same, but made the following observation :-