SURYA RANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ application is primarily to legality of action taken in terms of Rule -38 -A(2)(bb) read with Rule 38 -A (10) (bb) of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules') framed under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 1960 (in short 'the Act'). A detailed reference to the factual setting is unnecessary.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are as follows : Tahasildar -cum -Revenue Officer, Sambalpur, by his order dated 31 -3 -1977 in O. L. R. Lease Case No. 8/77 settled Ac. 2.85 decimals of land in favour of one Udhaba Rana, the husband of the present petitioner. The purported action leading to cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioner's husband was taken on the basis of allegation made by certain persons of village Ghodadihi in the year 1991. Collector, Sambalpur on receipt of the allegation, forwarded the same to the Tahasildar for inquiry, on the basis of which Misc. Case No. 1 of 1991 was initiated. After inquiry it was found that the claim of landlessness on the basis of which lease was granted in favour of Udhaba is false. The Addl. District Magistrate (L. R.), Sambalpur on receipt of the report from the Addl. Tahasildar, Sambalpur initiated action for cancellation of lease and the matter was dealt with by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Orissa, Sambalpur (in short 'the R.D. C'). By the impugned order of the R. D. C. (Annexure -1) dated 15 -11 -1994, it was held that the statement of ceiling surplus land in favour of the petitioner was erroneous, and the lease granted in favour of the petitioner in O. L. R. Lease Case No. 8 of 1977 was cancelled.

(3.) AS has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the parties, the legality of the order passed by the R. D. C. has to be tested on touchstone of reasonableness of time. Even though no period of limitation is prescribed, power has to be exercised in a reasonable manner which inheres the concept that it must be done within a reasonable time. Absence of a provision prescribing a period of limitation is an assurance to exercise the power within caution or circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act, or to prevent miscarriage of justice or misuse or abuse of the power by lower authorities. It is true that when benefit has been obtained by fraud, it does not lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead limitation to get away with the order. Lapse of time is no excuse to refrain the authority exercising statutory powers to unravel fraud and set the matter right. (See State of Orissa and Ors. v. Brundaban Sharma and Anr.: 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 249). The facts and circumstances of each case would indicate what would be the reasonable time. In certain cases, this Court has held that the action initiated after lapse of 5 or 6 years is unreasonable. (See Labanyabati Devi and Ors. v. Member, Board of Revenue and Ors. : 1993 (II) OLR 365). Reasonable is that which stems from reason; which is not arbitrary or capricious. Reasonableness has a wide connotation. It has to be understood both objectively and subjectively. An act is reasononable when it is comfortable or agreeable to reason. The expression 'reasonable' means' rational, according to the dictates of reason, and not excessive or immoderate'. Terms like 'reasonable', 'fair', 'just' derive their significance from the setting in which the impugned action has taken place. The action is called reasonable which an informed intelligent, just -minded, person could rationally favour. The concept of 'reasonable' is relative. It is a question of degree, dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would be hard to give an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. It has been said that an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word 'reasonable' is trying to count what is not number, and measure what is not space. However, one thing is clear, it applies to sense of right reason, propriety or fairness. Chief Baron Pollock has said 'reasonable time' means as soon as circumstances will permit. It is such length of time as may fairly, and properly be allowed or required having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending circumstances. In the case at hand, we find that action was taken nearly after lapse of 14 years. By no stretch of imagination and judged by any standard, it cannot be said to be reasonable time within which action was taken. Fraud was not the basis for impugned action. In that view of the matter, we quash the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (a copy of which is at Annexure -1). However, there will be no order as to costs. P.C. Naik, J. The question involved in this petition is similar to the one involved in OJC No. 5149 of 1995 which has been disposed of to -day in which f have also expressed my opinion, I agree with brother Pasayat, J. that the order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained and has to be quashed.