SRI BASANTA KUMAR DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions were heard analogously having been preferred against common orders of the Tahasildar -cum -Revenue Officer, Bargarh in O.L.R. Case (Ceiling Proceeding) No. 46 of 1981 and orders of the S.D.O. -cum -O.S.D. (L.R.), Bargarh in O.L.R. Application Nos. 32,35 and 36, all of 1988, and by the Addl. District Magistrate (L.R.), Sambalpur in O.L.R. Revision No. 22 of 1988 and, therefore, this common judgment shall abide the result in both the writ petitions.

(2.) CEILING Proceeding under Chapter -IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') was initiated against the holder of the land being the heirs and successors of Late Lokanath. In course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner provided the following genealogy and learned counsel for the State, after verification of the L.C.R., did not dispute to correctness of the same. Accordingly the genealogy is as follows: Late Lokanath (1964)________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | Balaram Late Laxmi Parbati Usha Kandi Lata Late Laxman (1960)| (d) (d) (d) (d) Late Kainfula (1981)| |_______________ ___________________ | | | |Sumitra Urbasi Bipin Subasini(1st wife) (2nd wife) (w) Sailabaia| |Basanta ______________________________________________________________| | | | |(Adopted) Sanjib Sujit Nirupama Sushama Suruthi From the aforesaid genealogy, it is clear that the original owner Lokanath died in the year 1964. It is also not in dispute that his two sons namely Balaram and Laxman had partitioned the properties in metes and bounds much prior to 26.09.1970, the cut off date for severances of status as per the provision in Section 37(b) of the Act. to also appears from the aforesaid genealogy and the admitted fact of the parties that Balaram had two wives, the first wife Sumitra was divorced in 1957 and she is possessing certain extent of land separately. The further fact which is not in dispute is that Laxman the second son of Lokanath died in the year 1960 and his widow Kainfula died in 1981, but the said Kainfula was in separate possession of certain landed properties and after her death the same is to devolve on her Class -1 heirs, i.e., Bipina and Subasini.

(3.) IN the ceiling proceeding learned Tahasildar has allotted 10 standard acres of land to the family of Balaram together with the divorced wife Sumitra and found a surplus of Ac. 5.93 decimals. Similarly he allotted 12 standard acres to the family of Bipin and declared a surplus of Ac. 7.19 decimals. Grievance of the parties is that share of Sumitra and Kainfula which are owned and possessed by them separately, is required to be excluded and the Courts below including the appellate and the revisional authority wrongly and illegally refused to exclude the same. Learned counsel for the State while unable to defend that lacuna in the consideration of the Courts below, argued that the actual state of affairs in that respect can be ascertained on a further proper enquiry and therefore the matter should be remitted back to the Tahsildar with clear direction.