BIRANCHI MAHAKUD Vs. REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application arises out of a ceiling surplus proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the 'Act').

(2.) DAITARI , Dinabandhu, Dirju alias Duryodhan and Damodar are the four sons of Baiju Mahakud. Daitari, one of the brothers of the first branch, filed a return under Section 40 -A of the Act and a proceeding under the Act was initiated. The draft statement was prepared. In that proceeding, the land owner Biranchi Mahakud, petitioner No. 1 (son of Daitari), Basanti, petitioner No. 3 (wife of Dinabandhu of the 2nd branch), and Duryodhan, petitioner No. 5, of the 3rd branch were present and they filed their objection claiming that they were separate and aged persons. That fact has been noticed by the Revenue Officer in his order dated 30th August, 1975 in O.L.R. Case No. 18 of 1973. It appears that the learned Revenue Officer has not properly considered the contentions raised on behalf of Dinabandhu and Duryodhan's branches, On 7. 12. 1975, as if by way of a summary order, the Revenue Officer held that they are one family in association and not a family although a contention had been raised that all the lands are , irrigated and irrigation certificates in support of that fact had been produced. We fail to understand what is the meaning sought to be given to 'family' by the Revenue Officer.