V APPA RAO Vs. REVENUE OFFICERCHATRAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three landholders are petitioners in these applications, each one being by one such landholder. Ceiling areas were carved out in the proceedings under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Steps were taken by the Revenue Officer to fix up compensation for the ceiling surplus land as provided under Section 47 of the Act. In these cases we are concerned with the valuation of standing trees on lands. Section 47 (2) (b) has a statutory formula for determining market value of trees standing on the surplus lands and an Explanation attached to the section indicates that in determining the market value, the Revenue Officer shall as far as practicable be guided by the provisions contained in Sub-section (1)" of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Keeping the aforesaid provisions of the statute in view, the Revenue Officer by his order dated 28-11-1978 determined the quantum of compensation admissible under Section 47 (2) (b) of the Act. About a year after the finalisation under Annexure-1 emanated a circular in the form of a letter from the office of the Land Reforms Commissioner in the Board of Revenue dated 23-11-1979 (An-nexure-61 purporting to indicate a guideline for fixation of the compensation. Para 3 of the Circular indicated :-- "The cases pending for want of rates of fruit bearing trees may please be finalised accordingly." On the basis of this circular letter, the Revenue Officer called the petitioners again by notice dated 18-1-1980 and . scaled down the compensation which had once been finally determined. Petitioners challenged the order of scaling down in appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer and having lost have filed these writ applications.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner in each of these applications challenges the validity of the circular by saying that once statutory guidelines have been indicated, there can be no straight jacket formula evolved as in Annexure-6 and in each case the matter had to be left to be determined in accordance with law. Alternatively, he contended that in view of what had been stated in para 3 of the letter, it must have been found by the Revenue Officer that cases which had been finalised were not intended to be reopened by way of review and since petitioners' cases had been determined a year before the circular was issued, the Revenue Officer had no foundation for reopening the matters which had become final.

(3.) No counter affidavit has been filed. In the facts of the case we are inclined to think that no counter affidavit was really necessary.