BISWANATH NAYAK ALIAS PATTANAYAK Vs. REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners claiming to be tenants in respect of certain properties belonging to the deity 'Thakur Brundaban Chandra Dev, Bije Bada Khurda' prayed for relief Under Section 15(1)(b) and (d) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act before the Tahasildar, Khurda in O.L.R. Cases Nos. 33, 34, 33, 39, 40 and 42 of 1978 The deity has been impleaded as an opposite party in these writ applications and we are told that the deity has been declared as a privileged raiyat within the meaning of the Act. The Revenue Officer after examining the records and the evidence placed before it declared the petitioners in all these cases as bhag tenants under the deity. Against the aforesaid declaration of tenancy in favour of the petitioners, two appeals were filed by the landlord before the Officer on Special Duty, Khurda registered as O.L.R. Appeal No. 258/80 and No. 19/82. The appellate authority in both the appeals set aside the order of the Revenue Officer and held that there is no evidence to establish the tenancy of the original petitioners in all the aforesaid cases, The tenants carried up two revisions bearing Nos. 106 and 107 of 1983 before the revisional authority against the finding of the appellate authority. The revisional authority disposed of both the revisions by a common order annexed to the writ applications as Annexure -3.lt may be noted that in O.L.R Appeal No. 19/82 the order passed in O.L.R. Case Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of 1978 was impugned and against the appellate order O.L R. Revision No. 106/83 was preferred. OJC No. 606/90 has been filed challenging the aforesaid revisional order. The other writ application, i. e. OJC No. 607/90, arises out of the rest of the OLR cases against which O.L.R. appeal No. 258/80 was filed and the appellate order was the subject matter of O.L.R. Revision No. 107/83. Since the petitioners and the opposite parties in all these cases are the same, the cases were disposed of by a common judgment. Therefore, both the writ applications were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) MR . Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the revisional order in Annexure -3 and contends that the revisional authority has not applied its judicial mind in disposing of the revision. The case of the petitioners before the Revenue Officer was that they have been cultivating the suit land on bhag basis and paying bhag to the deity who is owner of the land. Their claim was contested by the landlord (deity) on the ground that the petitioners were never inducted as tenants and the lands were being cultivated by the marfatdars of the deity through hired labourers. According to Mr. Pal, there are evidence on record, namely, Ext. C series which will prove that the bhag dues being collected from the petitioners by the agents of the institution. His further argument is that the landlord being a deity, accounts must have been maintained by the marfatdars who were managing its affairs which would indicate as to whether or not the deity was in cultivating possession. Mr. Pal has argued that the revisional Court did not attach any importance for analysing the evidence adduced on behalf of th3 landlord to find out if the plea taken by the landlord has been substantiated. According to Mr. Pal, once it is held that the landlord was not in khas possession of the land, the plea of the petitioners cultivating the land would be more acceptable and in that view of the matter it was equally relevant and necessary for the revisional Court to look into that aspect of the matter. The revisional order discloses that it has proceeded as if the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord was unnecessary to be seen. The revisional Court has observed that the appellate Court was not required to discuss the evidence of both parties because it is the evidence of petitioners alone which would determine the fate of the case. The revisional Court also observed that it was not necessary for the landlord to produce accounts and there is no question of weighing evidence given by both sides like any other civil case. We, however, do not appreciate this approach of the revisional authority. We are of the view that the revisional Court has not approached the case from a correct angle. Since this is a dispute of civil nature and the Revenue Officer and the higher forums are the exclusive authorities to decide the dispute, law requires to decide the dispute fairly which they can only do by considering each piece of evidence which is relevant for the purpose. It is not correct for the revisional authority to ignore the evidence of the landlord as unnecessary. - -