KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. BANSIDHAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by the Land Reforms Commissioner under Annexure -6 and the order of the Addl. District Magistrate under Annevure -5 are being challenged in this writ application, Inter alia, on the ground that these authorities committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the opp. party No. 1 was entitled to deposit the amount of compensation within one year of the appellate order and thereby the penalty attached to the non -payment of the amount will not be attracted.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that opp. party No. 1 filed an application Under Section 4 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act to be declared as an occupancy raiyat under the petitioner. That application was disposed of by order dated 28 -7 -1970 ex parte and the Revenue Officer directed that the said opp. party No. 1 should pay the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 367.15 to the petitioner within one year from the date of the order failing which the land will revert back to the petitioner. The said order has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ application. This order was challenged in appeal in O.L.R. Appeal No. 230 of 1970, but the appeal was dismissed on 20 -11 -1970. On 11 -9 -1971, opp. party No. 1 moved the Revenue Officer to deposit the compensation amount alleging that he had sent the money to the petitioner by money order, but the petitioner refused to accept the same. The Revenue Officer directed that the amount be kept in as revenue deposit by order dated 20 -10 -1971, obviously not being aware of the earlier order dated 28 -7 -1970. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same filed an application purporting to exercise jurisdiction Under Section 60 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. That application was allowed and the Revenue Officer rectified his own mistake on coming to the conclusion that the period of one year from the date of the order passed Under Section 4(7) of the Act having expired, the order had operated upon and the land must stand reverted to the landlord. The said order of the Revenue Officer has been annexed as Annexure -3. Opp. party No. 1 carried an appeal to the Sub -Divisional Officer who by his order under Annexure -4 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter opp. party No. 1 preferred a revision which was registered as OLR. Revision No. 19 of 1975. The Addl. District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the period of one year as contained in the order dated 28 -7 -1970 must be computed from the date of finlisation of the appeal and, therefore, the offer made by opp. party No. 1 on 11 -9 -1971 and accepted by the Revenue Officer on 20 -10 -1971 must be held to be within time. He further held that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order dated 20 -10 -1971 and ultimately allowed the appeal. The order of the Additional District Magistrate is annexed as Annexure -5. Against the said order under Annexure -5, the petitioner filed a revision before the Land Reforms Commissioner to refer the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue, obviously under Sub -section (2) of Section 59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The Land Reforms Commissioner having dismissed the same as per Annexure -6 by order dated 4 -2 -1986, the petitioner has approached this Court. In dismissing the revision, the Land Reforms Commissioner has held that The order of the Addl. District Magistrate was fully justified and there is no cause or doubt for making a reference to the Board of Revenue.

(3.) IN view of the rival submissions made at the Bar, the first question that arises for our determination is whether, the period of one year contemplated in the order of the Revenue Officer dated 28th of July, 1970, has to be computed from the date of the order itself or from the date of the appellate order. The order of the Revenue Officer is clear, categorical and unambiguous and does not entertain any doubt about the same. Pendency or an appeal against the same without the order being stayed does not keep the order in abeyance In that view of the matter, there can hardly be any rationale in the conclusion of the revisional authority as well as that of the Land Reforms Commissioner that the period of one year contained in the order of the Revenue Officer dated 28 -7 -1970 would be com -puted from the finalisation of the appeal. We also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 that in view of Section 61 of the Act, the period has to be computed from the date of the appellate order. Section 61 of the Act merely states that all orders passed under the Act would be subject to the orders passed in appeal or revision, as the case may be, and shall not be called in question in any Court of law. That provision has nothing to do while interpreting the question whether the period of one year contained in the order of the Revenue Officer dated 28 -7 -1970 has to be computed from the date of the order or from the date of the appellate order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no doubt in our mind that the said period of one year has to be computed from the date of the original order itself, i.e. 28 -7 -1970. Admittedly the revisional authority as well as the Land Reforms Commissioner committed gross error of law in coming to the conclusion that the said period of one year will be computed from the date of the appellate order. The said conclusion, cannot, therefore, be sustained and must be rejected.