MAHADEV SASMAL ALIAS SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court having been aggrieved by an order passed by the Revenue Officer purported to be Under Section 8(1)(b) of the Orissa Lind Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing the petitioners ' eviction from the land as paryat and taking over possession by the Revenue Inspector. The facts, stated in brief, are that the proceeding Under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act was initiated and notice was issued to the petitioners in OLR Case No. 27 of 1984 directing them to show cause as to why they should not be (sic)ted from the land they having kept it without cultivation for the last sixty years. The petitioners showed cause denying the allegation contending that they are cultivating the land. The Revenue Officer conducted a spot verification on 16 -2 -1985 but the petitioners were absent even though they had been noticed earlier. The Revenue Officer disposed of the proceeding on. 21 -9 -1985 basing upon the facts found during his spot visit that, the land was used as a compost pit and that a portion of the land was also used as a pond. He also found that the land was being used by the villagers of Kolothigam for the last 30 -40 years and that the villagers have got a right of easement over the land. The Revenue Officer further purported to find that the petitioners had cunningly sold away the land to one Dandapani Dalai and his wife (opp, party Nos 6 and 7 in this proceeding) to create animosity among the villagers.

(2.) MR . Pal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in assailing the order, that the entire proceeding started Under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act was misconceived and without jurisdiction and that the findings purported to be arrived therein are. also without substance and also could not have been reached in such a proceeding It is his submission that. in -as much as the proceeding is a suo motu one initiated by the Revenue Officer, the proceeding was still -born since commencement of a suo motu proceeding Under Section 8(1)(b) is not contemplated It is his further contention that to start a proceeding Under Section 9(1)(.b) notice for three months as required Under Section 8(2) is compulsorily necessary but that such notice had never been given and hence the proceeding could not have started in the first place,

(3.) SECTION 8 of the Act re a provision faying down the grounds of eviction of a raiyat. This provision, which declares the grounds does not state the machinery to put such grounds into implementation. Necessary provision for their implementation is Section 12 which contemplates that an application is to be made by the landlord before the Revenue Officer in the prescribed manner within sixty days from the date on which the dispute arises and that the Revenue Officer, after making such enquiry as may be necessary, shall pass necessary orders as he deems fit. It is conceded by the learned Additional Government Advocate that neither Section 8 or 12 nor any other provrsion in the Act authorises the Revenue Officer to start a suo motu proceeding for eviction of a raiyat ors th base of the grounds enumerated in Section 8. ft is brought to our notice that the proceeding was started on the basis of the report of the .Revenue inspector only. It is nowhere shown that such a proceeding can be commenced on the basis of a report of the Revenue Inspector. Even where the State is the landlord, as in the present case, a petition for eviction of a raiyat on any of the grounds specified in Section 8(1) has to be filed on behalf of the State and the Revenue Officer as the statutory authority, is to cause the enquiry. and decide the dispute but he cannot initiate a 'proceeding suo motu himself and decide the lis himself. In that event the Revenue Officer would be combining in himself both the functions of the accuser and the judge which is violative of the very concept of a Judicial determination.