MAGUNI SARDAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who succeeded in a ceiling proceeding at the revisional stage directing remand of the matter to the revenue officer with instructions to consult the local committee in the matter of confirmation of the draft statement, has come before this Court as the direction was not carried out and instead steps were taken to distribute the surplus land which had earlier been taken over from him. The facts are that the petitioner's father Kandha Ranbaj Sardar who had died forty years back had left behind him two sons, the petitioner and his brother Tarini Sardar. A suo motu ceiling proceeding Under Section 42 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act was started in 1975 against Tarini Sardar, the present opp. party No. 5 as the sole land holder of all the lands left behind by Kandha Ranbaj Sardar. The matter having been decided against opp. party No. 5 and he having failed in appeal and revision, he came before this Court in O.J.C. No. 1806/80 which was allowed on 14 -2 -1985 remanding the case to the revenue officer for giving fresh opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. After remand, the petitioner filed objections to the draft statement before the revenue officer though the draft statement had never been served upon him. The revenue officer decided on 3 -9 -1986 of the opp. party No. 5 to be not in possession of any ceiling surplus land and the petitioner as having Ac. 3.64 standard acres of surplus land. He directed the petitioner to surrender the surplus land. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal but that having been dismissed, he preferred a revision before the A.D.M. who held the proceeding to have been correctly carried out by the revenue officer except that the local committee had not been consulted and therefore remanded the matter to the revenue officer for passing the order after consulting with the local committee. After receipt of the records, the revenue officer held that his order had been upheld by the revisional authority, and without taking any steps for consultation with the local committee, directed a report to be called for regarding possession of surplus land. On 27 -12 -1988 the revenue officer held that the surplus land had since been taken over, and directed issue of general notice inviting applications from deserving persons for allotment of the surplus lands. On 15 -5 -1989 he recorded that no application for allotment of the ceilling surplus land had been received, and therefore directed the R, l. of Dasaipur to collect applications from the village where the lands situate and also from the surrounding villages for the purpose.

(2.) MR . Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that besides the fact that the local committee had not been consulted as directed by the revisional authority, there are also other infirmities in the ceiling proceeding which make the order bad in law. According to him, such infirmities are that some of the properties had not been classified and that a tank of three acres which had been sold as that of opp. party No. 5 had been shown as the petitioner's land and was taken into account while computing the surplus land. The other objections, raised by Mr. Mukherjee of illegalities in the proceeding, like non -service of draft statement on the petitioner, non -proclamation by beat of drums, and non -exclusion of land alienated prior to 1970, have no substance as the petitioner had admittedly filed objection to the draft statement and hence there could be no prejudice to him because of non -service of the statement or the absence of beat of drums if at all. So far as non -exclusion of the land alienated is concerned, the question had been dealt with in the revisional order citing cogent reasons for not giving such relief to the petitioner and we do not intend to interfere with it.

(3.) IT is also brought to our notice that in the counter affidavit filed in the present case there has been admission of non -classification of survey Nos. 219, 234, 236, 291 and 261 which fact was alleged in para -19 of the writ petition and in para -19 of the counter affidavit averment has been made that such statement in the Writ petition is not disputed. We would hence direct the revenue officer to take steps to properly classify the lands while deciding the matter. A further objection is raised regarding inclusion of a tank shown as the property of opp. party No. 5 in the petitioner's land. Such objection may be raised before the revenue officer and if that is a fact, the matter may be dacided by him in accordance with law We also further direct that in the event no surplus land is found with the petitioner, the lands taken over from him as surplus lands be recovered and returned to him. The case being an old one, it be disposed of by the revenue officer within three months of receipt of the writ from this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take back the certified copies of the annexures filed in this case by substituting the same by typed attested copies. The writ petition is allowed. Hearing of is assessed at Rs. 300/ -