PURNA CHANDRA SAMINI Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and opposite party No. 5 are the sons of opposite party No. 4. A suo motu ceiling proceeding under Chapter - IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Act') was initiated by the Revenue Officer against opposite party No. 4. In the ceiling proceeding, it was claimed on behalf of the present petitioner that since he was a major, married and separated son of Mahadev Saini (present opposite party No. 4) prior to 26th September, 1970, he is entitled to a separate ceiling and his separate property and that of opposite party No. 5 should not be lagged to the ceiling case started against the present opposite party No. 4.Similar objection had also been filed by the present opposite party No. 5. The Revenue Officer after recording the statement of the present petitioner and opposite party No. 5 called upon the Revenue Inspector, Satalma, to submit the report of the Local Committee as well as his report after field enquiry, specially in connection with the alleged separation. Ultimately after receipt of the reports from the Revenue, Inspector, Satalma, the Revenue Officer posted the matter to 22.11.1982. On that day, the following order was passed : 'Party absent on call. Although the party was given the last opportunity to this date but he is absent. Thus the objection is rejected for default. The R.I. has submitted the Local Committee Opinion, but as the party is not complying the order of the Court the Local Committee Opinion is not acceptable. The D/S (Draft Statement) issued earlier is confirmed under Section 44(1) of the O.L.R. Act. Ordered ex parte on 22nd day of Nov. 1982.' Thereafter the present petitioner filed O.L.R. Review Case No. 54 of 1983 before the appellate authority under Section 60(2) of the Act. The said application having been rejected, a reference was made to the Member, Board of Revenue, under Section 59(2) of the Act, recommending that the orders of the Revenue Officer in the ceiling case and the appellate authority in review should be revised. The said revision having been rejected by the Member, Board of Revenue, the present writ application has been filed. It appears that after disposal of the review by the appellate authority, the ceiling surplus lands have been distributed.

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Revenue Officer has disposed of the ceiling proceeding in violation of the principles of natural justice and has dismissed the objection merely on the ground of absence of the petitioner without considering on merit the materials on record. It is further submitted that the appellate authority who had been approached by way of review application, as provided under Section 60(2) of the Act, without considering the main contentions raised by the petitioner, has rejected the said application. It is further submitted that the opinion of the Local Committee and the evidence of the present petitioner as well as opposite party No. 5 clearly established about the separation of the petitioner and opposite party No. 5 and the Member, Board of Revenue, has not considered the matter in its proper perspective. The learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the decisions of the authorities and has further submitted that since the lands have already been distributed, the present writ application should not be entertained.

(3.) SIMILARLY , the appellate authority who was approached by way of statutory review as provided under Section 60(2) of the Act should have applied its mind to the materials on record or, at any rate, should have remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer to give a decision on merit. The power of review granted to the appellate authority under Section 60(2) is very much dissimilar from the power of review conferred on the same authority. The scope of Section 60(2) is not limited or narrow as contemplated in Section 60(1) or in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the appellate authority before whom the review application was filed declined to interfere in the matter on untenable ground by merely stating that no particular land had been wrongly included in the Final Statement under Section 44(3) of the Act. The very fact that the Revenue Officer had disposed of the Objection on the ground of default without disposing of the same on merit contravened the provisions contained in the Act. It is true that the Member, Board of Revenue, in the revision under Section 59(2) of the Act has disposed of the matter on merit and negatived the case of the present petitioner. However, since the original authority as also the appellate authority under the statute have not disposed of the matter on merit; we are inclined to remand the matter to the Revenue Officer to take a decision on merit keeping in view all the materials on record. It would be open to the parties, that is to say, the petitioner, opposite parties 4 and 5, to produce additional materials in support of their respective claims. The Revenue Officer should dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of this order without being influenced in any manner by any observations made in the impugned orders including that of the Member, Board of Revenue.