LABANYABATI DEVI Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack exercising his jurisdiction Under Section 39(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, I960 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioners have filed this writ application.

(2.) IN the writ application, it has been averred that a suo matu proceeding was initiated against the two brothers Bamadev Satpathy and Durga Charan Satpathy sons of late Bholanath Satpathy. By the time of initiation of the proceeding the father of the petitioners was dead. Both the petitioners had filed written statements taking the stand that both the brothers were separated from each other in mess and property since 30 years and they do not constitute one family. The further stand of the petitioners was that they did not have property beyond the ceiling unit permitted under the Act.

(3.) ON being moved by the Collector, Cuttack Under Section 59(2) of the Act against the order passed in O. L. R. Case No. 608 of 1975 dated 29 -11 -1975 the Member, Board of Revenue exercised his suo mutu jurisdiction and initiated suo motu Revision Under Section 59 (2) of the Act which was registered as O. L. R. Revision No. 47 of 1987. The petitioners objected to the initiation of the revision. The learned Member, Board of Revenue had set aside the order dated 29 -11 -1975 passed in O. L. R. Case No. 608 of 1975 on the grounds that no spot enquiry was conducted and there is no finding that Bamadev Satapathy and Durga Charan Satapathy, both the brothers were living in separate mess and were cultivating their lands separately prior to 1970. He came to the further conclusion that: '......So all the lands claiming to be held individually by the two brothers of the family should have been deemed to have been held by the family. Once one individul becomes a member of the family, according to the definition Under Section 37(b), the land held by him individually or jointly with other members of the same family shall be deemed to have been held by the family and surplus lands, are to be determined accordingly......'. The learned Member, Board of Revenue came to the further conclusion that no enquiry had been made regarding the transactions which were made after 26 -9 -1970 by the land -holders. After giving the above findings he set aside the order passed in 0. L. R. Case No. 608 of 1975 and remitted the matter of fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law. This order passed by opp party No. 1 is challenged in this writ application.