NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH SAMANTA Vs. REVENUE OFFICER KHANDAPARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has applied for a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders passed in a Ceiling Fixation proceeding by opposite party No. 1 under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereafter referred as the Act). According to the petitioner, he belongs to a family with the following genealogy:Petitioner submitted a return under Section 40-A of the Act indicating the total extent of land in possession of the family, the lands alienated prior to the relevant date and the lands of which they were in possession and stated that as at present the total area was within the ceiling to which petitioner's family was entitled, all the lands should be permitted to be retained. By order dated 5-12-1974, the Revenue Officer came to hold that the family possessed of more than 26 acres of land and as such the matter should be investigated. He asked for a report from the Record-Keeper. The Revenue Officer after obtaining reports from the Revenue Inspectors directed a draft statement to be drawn up and published in form 13. On receipt of notices on 26-7-1975. petitioner filed an objection on 20th of August, 1975. After the objection was filed, according to the allegation of the petitioner, a notice was served on him to appear on 6-9-1975 for the hearing of objection. Petitioner appeared and wanted time till 11-9-1975. On that date, he produced some documents and was told that a local inspection would be made for finding out the truth of his stand and for determining the classification of the lands. In support of his allegations he produced the notice dated 6-9-75 and certain registered documents on which the Revenue Officer had put his signature with the date as "11/9". According to the petitioner, there was no local inspection and he was surprised ultimately to find a notice that certain lands had been declared as surplus and were directed to be taken over from him. He then filed this application for relief.

(2.) When rule nisi was issued, the successor-Revenue Officer filed the return claiming that the objection was disposed of on 21-8-1975 and no notice had been issued fixing 6-9-1975 for hearing. That records were produced on 11-9-1975 was also denied and it was claimed that Petitioner having not preferred an appeal against the confirmed statement no relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction should be granted to him. At the hearing, learned counsel for the opposite parties also alleged that the writ application must be declared to have abated under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution.

(3.) With reference to the preliminary objection of abatement, counsel for petitioner contended that when property of the petitioner was being taken away without a hearing, fundamental rights under Arts. 19 and 31 were affected and rules of natural justice having been denied the order was not at all sustainable. Accordingly this application could not be thrown out on account of abatement as it would be directly covered under Article 226 (1) (a) of the Constitution and sub-art. (3) would have no application. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner and accordingly this application cannot be thrown away as having abated.