ARJUNA NAIK Vs. GANGAMANI PATRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has arised out of a proceeding under Section 36 -A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Orissa Act 16 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 36 -A in Form No. 19 of the Rules framed under the Act for a declaration that the land under his possession as a bhag -tenant is non -resumable and for issuance of a certificate under Section 36 -A of the Act. The Revenue Officer -cum -Tahasildar, Nowrangour (Opposite Party No. 2), after hearing the parties. rejected the application and the petitioner being aggrieved by the said order referred an appeal before the appellate authority which was registered as O. L. R. Appeal No. 91 of 1977, in the Court of the Additional District magistrate (Land Reforms), Koraput. The appellate authority, after hearing the parties, set aside the order of rejection passed by the Revenue Officer and remitted back the case to him for allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his case and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(3.) MR . Rao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that all the authorities below, viz, the Revenue Officer (O. P. No. 2), the appellate authority (O. P. No. 3) as well at the Revisional Authority (O. P. No. 4), failed to consider the relevant material in the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has particularly brought to our notice that in the case the landlady was examined before the Revenue Officer as witness on her behalf. This witness ness has specifically stated that the petitioner was possessing the land given by her on bhag to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this categorical statement of the landlady has been blissfully ignored by all the authorities. It has also been brought to our notice that a documents marked as Ext. 1 was before the Revenue officer, which is the agreement for given the land on bhag to the petitioner. The petitioner also produced certain rent receipts to show that he was paying the rent to the landlady. We have perused the order passed by the learned Revenue Officer in O. L. R. Case No 16 of 1977 passed on 22.1.1979 ( Annexure -2 ) where he has found that the landlady in her deposition admitted the claim of the petitioner. However, while discussing the other materials he has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was never a bhag tenant under the landlady. It has been held by the Revenue Officer that the father of the petitioner was working as a Behera during his life time as a paid servant and was looking after the lands including the case lands and after his death the petitioner is only looking after the lands of the landlady. We have ourselves gone through the evidence of the landlady which has been annexed to this writ petition as Annexure -6. In her statement the landlady has stated that the petitioner was given her land on bhag and he was cultivating the same. It is also in her evidence that the petitioner was paying at the rate of four garissa of paddy to her annually against which she was granting the receipts on plain paper. Thus, we find that the relevant material available in the evidence of the landlady was not properly considered by the Revenue Officer. We have also gone through the order of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. There is no whisper of the above material evidence given by the landlady either in the order of the appellate authority or in the order of the revisional authority. None of these two authorities have discussed that there was some evidence given by the landlady on behalf of the petitioner. we are of the firm opinion that when there is some evidence on record the same should have been considered in its entirety. What would be the impact of such evidence is a different matter which can be taken into consideration by the authorities concerned. But non -consideration of the evidence on record is clearly a failure of exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the authorities.