NARAYAN SUMANTARAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves the following prayer:-

(2.) Factual background involved herein is that a suo motu ceiling surplus proceeding bearing O.L.R Case No.62 of 1974 was initiated by the Tahasildar in the name of one Subash Chandra Pradhan @ Samantaray, which was, however, dropped on the observation that on the basis of revised report of the R.I. it was found that the family held total extent of land 19.16 standard acre. The occupier was in Raiyat status, also remains one of the ground. While the matter stood thus O.L.R. Case No.59 of 1974 was instituted against the father of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 6, which also came to be dropped on 28/9/1974. It appears, there is also initiation of further ceiling proceeding against the father of the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.1 bearing in O.L.R. Case Nos.60 of 1974 and 61 of 1974 respectively, which also came to be dropped on 28/9/1974. While the matter stood thus in 1986 vide Annexure-1 the Tahasildar-cum- Revenue Officer, Khallikote initiated O.L.R Case No.1 of 1986 against Dandapani Pradhan @ Samantaray, where Dandapani Pradhan @ Samantaray appeared and claimed on the basis of family partition dtd. 1/3/1956 as well as transfer of the land by gift and sale prior to 1970. The Tahasildar, however, rejected the contentions of Dandapani Pradhan resulting filing of the O.L.R Appeal No.4 of 1988 vide Annexure-2.

(3.) Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner challenged the impugned order at Annexure-4 on the premises that the proceeding is grossly barred by time. Keeping in view the series of litigations concluded in the meantime Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further also contended that in absence of challenge to the ceiling proceedings earlier initiated and ended in appeal vide Annexure-2 U/s.58(A) of the Act. The proceeding U/s.59(2) of the OLR Act was not entertainable. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate further contended that undertaking of exercise U/s.59(2) of the OLR Act without resorting to Sec. 59(I) proceeding is per se not maintainable. In order to satisfy his claim on question of belatedness entertainment of the proceeding U/s.59(2) of the OLR Act, Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate relied on the following decisions:-