JUGAL KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner invokes the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to get his application under S.36A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') disposed of on merits by the Revenue Officer, Baripada in O.L.R. Case No. 553 of 1976.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant under Maharani Premkumari Devi of Baripada. She possessed lands beyond the ceiling limit fixed under the Act for which O.L.R. Case No.90 of 1975 was initiated and the Revenue Officer determined 173.89 acres to be her ceiling surplus land. On 23-5-1976 the draft statement was confirmed under S.44(1) of the Act and the same was finally published on 20-7-76. Shortly thereafter, on 6-8-1976 the petitioner made an application under S.36A of the Act before the Revenue Officer for declaration of the land in his cultivation as a tenant to be non-resumable and to determine the fair and equitable rent and compensation payable by him. On the same day, the Revenue Officer rejected his application on the finding that the land having been vested in the State Government in O.L.R. Case No. 90 of 1975 by order dt. 20-7-1976, the application is not maintainable. The petitioner approached the Land Reforms Commissioner to move the Board of Revenue to revise the orders in O.L.R. Case No. 90 of 1975 and O.L.R. Case No. 553 of 1976. Having failed to get the matters moved to Board of Revenue, the petitioner has approached this Court in the absence of any efficacious remedy available to him.

(3.) It is not disputed that the application under S. 36A is within the period stipulated under the Act. The legislative intention in the scheme of the Act is to give protection and higher rights to tenants within the limitations provided under the Act. When the vires of the legislation was questioned in this Court, it was observed in the decision reported in ILR (1975) Cut 843 (Bhikari Sahu v. State of Orissa) in paragraph 22 at page 887, after considering Ss. 39 to 45 and Ss. 36A and 36B, that a broad view should be taken. It was observed thus :