HARIPRIYA DIBYA Vs. PRANABANDHU KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by a land owner and asks for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Board of Revenue passed in a revision application. During the pendency of the writ application, the original petitioner having died the present petitioners who are the legal representatives have been substituted in his place.

(2.) THE tenant made an application under Section 26 (2) of the Orissa Land reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') which was posted to 5-8-1965 before the Revenue Officer. As there was a talk of settlement, the tenant submitted to the Revenue Officer that the case may be dropped. On 1-11-1966, the tenant again applied to the Revenue Officer to reopen the matter as there was no settlement. The Revenue Officer directed notice to the landlord fixing the matter to 16-11-1966, and reposted the matter to 2-1-1967 as by 16th november, the landlord had not been served with notice. In the meantime, on 24-12-1966, the Revenue Officer held a spot inquiry to ascertain if the tenant was actually a Bhag Chasi and examined three witnesses. On 2nd January, 1967, though the landlord had beer; served with notice as would appear from the service report, he remained absent. The Revenue Officer reposted the matter to 16th January, 1967. On that date, the landlord did not appear and after the proceeding had closed, his son by about the closing hour of the court applied for adjournment. The same was rejected and on the following day the revenue Officer passed final orders tin the application.

(3.) THE landlord appealed and that appeal was dismissed in the absence of the landlord. On a review application, the appellate authority remanded the matter. The tenant carried a revision against the order of remand. The Additional district Magistrate found that sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the landlord and since he had not availed of it at the trial stage, there was no need for a remand. Accordingly he vacated the direction for a fresh inquiry. The landlord moved the Board of Revenue and the Member, declined to interfere.