KAMALA JENA Vs. BINAPANI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER under Annexures -2 to 4 passed by the appellate and revisional authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act rejecting the claim of the present petitioner under Section 36 -A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) have been challenged by the petitioner, in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner filed O.L.R. Case No.348/1976 before the Revenue Officer -cumTahasildar, Bhadrak for declaration of the case land measuring Ac.1.14 dec. as nonresumable under Section 36 -A of the Act. The Revenue Officer by order dated 10.02.1983 allowed the petition which was challenged by the predecessor in interest of the present opposite party nos.1 to 4 in O.L.R. Appeal No.31 of 1983 before the S.D.O., Bhadrak, who allowed the appeal and rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that though the petitioner has been able to prove her possession over the land, there has been no assertion or proof with regard to payment of rent to the landlord for such possession, which is a necessary ingredient for conferring status of tenancy on the person in cultivating possession and, therefore, since the petitioner has failed to prove tenancy, the question of non -resumability of the land under Section 36 -A of the Act does not arise. The other ground for allowing the appeal was that the requirement of consultation with the local committee under Rule -27 -C of the Orissa Land Reforms (General Rules)1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) have also not been satisfied. The revision filed by the petitioner before the A.D.M.(L.R), Bhadrak in Revision Case No. 43 of 1994 challenging the appellate order was dismissed on 25.08.1988 and thereafter a further petition filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Bhadrak to make a reference to the Member, Board of Revenue under Section 59(2) of the Act for a further revision was also rejected in OLR Revision No.13 of 1994 by order dated 16.05.1997.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Revenue Officer found cultivating possession of the petitioner and accordingly decided the status of her tenancy and declared the land to be non -resumable, the appellate court should not have set aside the said finding without there being any contest by the landlord before the Revenue Officer.