(1.) IN the aforesaid three applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 17.10.1988 of the Revenue Officer passed in Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1988 at Annexure -3 (partly modified by the appellate order dated 26.2.1991 at Annexure -2 and the revisional order dated 5.10.1991 at (Annexure -1) determining ceiling surplus land at the hands of Puni Bewa (petitioner No. 1 in OJC No. 8993 of 1992). As the facts and the law involved in all the cases are one and the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) SUO motu ceiling case No. 1 of 1988 was initiated against Puni Bewa (petitioner No. 1 in OJC No. 8993 of 1992) on the allegation that she was in possession of Ac. 24.30 decimals of land which was in excess of the ceiling prescribed under law. The Revenue Officer, Bhadrak accordingly issued draft statement to her showing a surplus land of 9.89 standard acres at her hands and she was asked to file objection against the draft statement. On receipt of the copy of draft statement, the petitioner - Puni Bewa with her two sons Narendra Prusty and Gahendra Prusty(petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in OJC No. 8993 of 1992) filed a joint objection. Her two other sons namely, Surendra Kumar Prusty (petitioner in OJC No. 8991 of 1992) and Kailash Chandra Prusty (petitioner in OJC No. 8992 of 1992) filed separate objections on their behalf. The main objections raised on their behalf are as follows:
(3.) SHRI Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly contended that when Tauli Prusty (husband of petitioner Puni Bewa) was alive, there was a family partition in May, 1970 and the landed properties were divided among the co -sharers of the family consisting of the father and four sons and a deed of 'Panchayat Bantan Patra' was executed to that effect on 24.5.1970. In view of such partition, the lands of the sons could not have been clubbed together for determining the ceiling surplus land at the hands of Puni Bewa.