SURYA KUMAR BEHERA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law arises for consideration in the present writ application as to whether the suo motu power of revision conferred upon the Board of Revenue under Sub -section (2) of Section 59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act can be exercised over and over again or once the said power is exercised, it is no longer open for the Board to exercise that power afresh.

(2.) THE aforesaid question arises under the following circumstances ; A suo motu ceiling proceeding was registered by the Revenue Officer, Jaipatna (opp. party No. 3) which was registered as O. L. R. Ceiling Case No. 533 of 1977. The petitioner appeared before the Revenue Officer and filed his objection. The Revenue Officer then made a spot enquiry and ultimately by order dated 19 -8 -1977 came to hold that the petitioner had a surplus land of 1.80 standard acres and the Draft Statement was prepared showing the aforesaid surplus of 1.80 standard acres. The Draft Statement was confirmed by order dated 22 -11 -1978 and the final statement was prepared on 2 -1 -1979. Thereafter the Collector of the district moved the Board of Revenue under Sub -section of Section 59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') requiring him to examine the records of the proceedings and to correct the illegality committed by the Revenue Officer. That matter was registered as O. L. R. Revision Case No. 66 of 1982. The Member, Board of Revenue, in exercise of his powers under Sub -section of Section 59 of the Act disposed of the revision case by order dated 7th of March, 1983. He set aside the order of the Revenue Officer excluding 12.38 acres of land from the computation of ceiling which was subject -matter of a gift and directed that the said 12.33 acres be included in the ceiling of the petitioner. In accordance with the aforesaid direction of the Member, Board of Revenue. the Revenue Officer re -determined the ceiling by order dated 19 -5 -1983 and pursuant to such re -determination, another 12.38 acres of land was held to be surplus land of the petitioner and got vested in the State. Thereafter, the Collector, Kalahandi, moved again the Member. Board of Revenue, invoking his jurisdiction under Section 59 (2) of the Act on the ground that the ceiling of the petitioner has been wrongly determined on account of misconception of actual family composition of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said reference, the matter was again registered as O. L. R. Revision Case No. 245 of 1985 and the Board of Revenue accepted the reference and disposed of the matter by order dated 2 -6 -1987 and held that the Revenue Officer wrongly determined the members of the family of the petitioner which really consisted of only six and not nine, as held by the Revenue Officer. The Board, therefore, directed further amendment of the ceiling determination. It is this order of the Member. Board of Revenue, which is being challenged in the present writ application.

(3.) SECTION 59 (2) of the Act is extracted hereinbelow in extenso; 'The Board of Revenue may, at any time on being moved in that behalf by the Collector of a district or by the Land Reforms Commissioner, revise any order passed by any authority under this Act.' An examination of the scheme of the Act would reveal that a suo motu power of revision has been conferred on the Member, Board of Revenue, under Sub -section Section 59 without prescribing any period of limitation for exercise of that power on being moved by the district Collector or by the Land Reforms Commissioner, obviously to be exercised where the ends of justice so requires. In other words, whenever either the Collector or the Land Reforms Commissioner comes across any gross illegality or irregularity committed by the Subordinate revenue authorities in discharge of their duties under the provisions of the Act, he can make a reference for rectification of those irregularities or illegalities to the Member, Board of Revenue, and if ultimately the Board is satisfied on the reference, it can pass such order as it deems fit. The statute has conferred the suo motu power on the highest revenue authority without prescribing any guidelines for its exercise on the assumption that the highest authority would exercise the discretion judiciously and in accordance with the requirements of justice. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no limitation prescribed under Sub -section (2) of Section 59 for exercise of power by the Board, judicial pronouncement has been made that the said power must be exercised within a reasonable period and what would be a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.