SRI. SRI. CHANDANESWARI ANNAPURNA THAKURANI MARFAT SEBAIT-MARFATDAR BRAJAKISHORE PADHI MOHAPATRA Vs. ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of his powers under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (Hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act')' annexed as Annexure -5 is being assailed in this application, inter alia, on the grounds, that the power under; Section 59(2)of the Act is not exercisable against a revisional order and, also the said power having been exercised after lapse of a pretty, length of time the revisional order is unjust and is liable to be interfered with. The constitutionality of Section 59(2) of the Act has also been challenged on the ground that no guide line having been fixed, the said power is capable of being abused and arbitrarily exercised. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 26(1) of the Act for resumption, and to bring it under personal cultivation from opposite party No. 6 Chintamani Majhi. the said application was disposed of in favour of the Petitioner and the Tahasildar by his order dated 17 -1968 directed opposite party No. 6 to deliver possession of five acres of land to the Petitioner. The said order has been annexed as Annexure -l. Opposite party No. 6 preferred an appeal against the aforesaid Order under Section 58(1) at the Act being appeal case No. 14 of 1968. The Sub -Divisional Officer who is the appellate authority under the Act, Set aside the order of the Tahasildar under Annexure -l on a finding, that opposite party No. 6 acquired right of occupancy over the land in question as would appear from the rent appeal case No. 84/64 and, therefore, the, question of resumption under the Act does not arise, his order of the appellate authority has, been annexed, as Annexure -2. The Petitioner then filed a revision under Section 59 of the Act which was registered as revision case No. 7 of, 1973 and, the Additional District Magistrate allowed the said revision, and set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer and affirmed the order of the Tahasildar under Annexure -1. The order of the revisional authority has been annexed as Annexure -3. This order of the revisional authority is dated 3 -8 -1976. Opposite party No. 6 made an application to the Collector on 17 -9 -1976 for moving the Member. Board of Revenue against the order of the Additional District Magistrate contending therein that the order of the Additional District Magistrate is wholly illegal. The Collector registered that application as a revisional Miscellaneous case and forwarded the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of his powers under Sub -section (2) of Section 59 of the Act. The Member, Board of Revenue finally by the, impugned order dated 14th December, 1979 set aside the order of the Tahasildar as well as the older of the Additional District Magistrate and affirmed the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer.

(2.) MR . Murty appearing for the Petitioner raises the following contentions, in assailing the said order of the Member Board of Revenue.

(3.) SO far as the second submission of Mr. Murty is concerned, the same is based on the assumption that there has been unusual delay in exercise of the power under Sub -section (2) of the Act. There is no substance in the aforesaid contention in as much as the basis itself is erroneous the revisional order of the Additional District Magistrate is dated 3 -8 -1976 and immediately thereafter opposite party No. 6 moved an application before the Collector on 17 -9 -1976. The Collector thereafter made a preliminary enquiry and the forwarded the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue by his order dated 16 -10 -1978 and the Member, Board of Revenue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner finally disposed of the matter by his order dated 14 -12 -1979. Thus there has been no delay in initiating an action to invoke the jurisdiction under Sub -section (2) of Section 59 of the Act. If the matter remained for sometime pending before the Member, Board of Revenue, that cannot be a ground to hold that the order is bad. Pendency before an authority for some time to enable -the parties to have their say cannot be held to be unreasonable and, therefore, the second contention of Mr. Murty also in our opinion, does not merit consideration. The same is accordingly rejected.