YAKUB MAHAMMED Vs. REVENUE OFFICER CUM TAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution arise out of a ceiling surplus proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act.

(2.) Petitioners are sons of Ibrahim. A suo motu proceeding was initiated against Ibrahim for determination of ceiling surplus land. Ibrahim pointed out that there was partition among him and his sons. Accepting the partition, Tahasildar dropped the proceeding. When petitioners came to know that notice has been served on their father Ibrahim to surrender the ceiling surplus lands on 31-12-1989, they made enquiry to find out that Tahasildar reopened the proceeding and without notice to petitioners, has finalised the proceeding disbelieving the Partition of 1954 on the ground that the deed is not registered and in 1954 petitioners were minors. Accordingly, prayer has been made to quash the order dated 17-10-1976 in Annexure-3 series and notice dated 31-12-1988 (Annexure-4).

(3.) Mr. D. P. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that proceeding could not have been reopened behind the petitioners without notice to them in absence of power of review and factually also Tahasildar was not correct to disbelieve the petitioners. Mr. Sahu has relied upon the subsequent mutation of lands in names of the petitioners accepting the partition. Mr. Sahu further submitted that in case a proceeding was finalised in the year 1976, there was no acceptable reason why twelve years after, Ibrahim was called upon to surrender the surplus land which leads to an inference that the statutory function by the Tahasildar are colourable in character. Apparent negligence of the Tahasildar itself creates doubt about the official act being performed in regular course.