KHALI ROUT Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisional orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Reforms), Cuttack, confirming the orders of the appellate authority have been challenged in these writ petitions. Since the facts and questions of law involved in these writ petitions are similar, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THESE petitioners and others filed separate applications under Section 15(1)(d) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') before the Revenue Officer -cum -Tahasildar, Tigiria, praying to determine the dispute regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them and Madan Mohan Jew of Nuapatna -opposite party No. 4 as envisaged in the Act, since they were restrained to cultivate their respective lands by the trustees. Opposite party No. 4 on being noticed challenged the maintainability of the proceedings containing, inter alia, that in a proceeding finder Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (for short, 'Endowments Act') the lands in question were kept in the custody of interim trustees, namely, Chaitan Das and the Inspector of Endowments, who had inducted the petitioners to cultivate the same. The proceeding ultimately having been terminated in favour of hereditary trustees, the lands were released from the custody of the interim trustees and possession thereof was delivered to the former on 17.2.1987. So, the petitioners being ad hoc tenants cannot claim to have any right as tenants under law and therefore, the proceedings under Section 15(l)(d) of the Act were not maintainable.

(3.) ON consideration of the submissions of both the parties, the learned Revenue Officer held that the petitioners being tenants, proceedings under Section 15 (l)(d) of the Act were maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No. 4 preferred appeal to the Sub -Collector, Athagarh and the learned appellate Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, reversed the orders of the Revenue Officer and held the proceedings to be not maintainable. The petitioners preferred revision to the learned Additional District Magistrate (Land Reforms), Cuttack, challenging the order of the appellate Court. The revisional authority also concurred with the finding and the ultimate conclusion of the appellate Court. Hence the present writ petitions.