BANSIDHAR PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Bansidhar Pattnaik, in this writ application, has sought to challenge the following orders:

(2.) MISS Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders under Annexures 1, 2 and 3 and the proceedings giving rise to them are vitiated on account of non -constitution and non -consultation of the 'Local Committee' as contemplated under Section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. She further submits that while the Revenue Officer had directed vide his order dated 21.8.1989 to convene a 'Local Committee', yet no such local committee was convened nor any consultation was ever effected by the Revenue Officer with such local committee. In this respect, Miss Mishra submits that since the provisions of Rule 27 -C of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 have not been complied with, all proceedings impugned herein stand vitiated in the eye of law.

(3.) IN the impugned revisional order dated 9.7.1993 passed in O.L.R. Revision No. 8 of 1993, the Addl. District Magistrate has noted the fact that the Revenue Officer did not wait for the report of the 'Local Committee', even though, he had directed the concerned Rule 1 to convene a meeting of the local committee, constituted under the O.L.R. Act. Though such contention was noted and the fact accepted, yet the Addl. District Magistrate in the revisional order came to hold that since the Revenue Officer himself had carried out a 'spot inquiry' on 21.1.1990 and the petitioner was present at the spot inquiry, ample opportunity had been given to the petitioner to put forth his claim before the lower Court and therefore, no grievance on this score would be accepted.