R SATYANARAYAN MURTY Vs. V RAGHU RAMARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this application for a wril of certiorari is to the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (opposite parly No. 3) in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Opposite party No. 1 claiming to be a tenant in respect of 1.60 acres of land as detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition moved the Revenue Officer by filing two separate applications under Section 36-A of the Act. The first application which was registered as O. L. R. Case No. 785 of 1976 related to 1.00 acre of land while the other registered as O.L.R. Case No. 1964 of 1976 was in respect of Ac.0.60 decimals of land. Pending adjudication of these two cases, the tenant-opposite party No. 1 also applied under Section 15 of the Act before the Revenue Officer in O. L. R. Case No. 2380 of 1976 for the self-same land on the allegation that the landlord was interfering with his cultivating possession. The tenant ap--plied in the lastly instituted case under Section 15 (5) for ad interim injunction and for the appointment of a receiver as provided under Section 15 (7) of the Act. On 4-12-1976, the Revenue Officer appointed the local Revenue Inspector as receiver of the standing crop. The petitioner took the stand that opposite party No. 1 was not his tenant and had no connection with the land. The Revenue Officer rejected both the applications under Section 36-A of the Act Opposite Party No. 1 preferred appeals before the Additional District Magistrate challenging the rejection of the claim. The Revenue Officer thereafter rejected the application under Section 15 of the Act on the basis of his finding in the cases under Section 36-A of the Act and asked the receiver to hand over the property to the petitioner. By order dated 5-91978, the Additional District Magistrate directed :-

(2.) The main contentions in support of the application are :--

(3.) None of the conlentions seems to be valid. Every appellate Court, unless there be any restrictions in the relevant statute, has the same power as the original forum. If the Revenue Officer had the jurisdiction fo appoint a receiver, the appellate authority in respecf of a matter covered by Section 15 of the Act had equally a jurisdiction to appoint a receiver.