BATAI CHITTAMMA Vs. REVENUE OFFICER CUM TAHASILDAR BERHAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') holding that she had land in excess of the permissible ceiling. She has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the said authorities as contained in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 and for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs to drop the proceeding against her and to deliver possession in respect of the land taken over, and to declare that she is not a ceiling surplus landholder.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the case is as follows :- A proceeding was initiated under S.42 of the Act against one Batai Mohan. Draft statement was prepared on the basis of information as obtained from the settlement authorities and the same was published on 29-7-1975. The notice issued to the aforesaid Batai Mohan returned back with a remark that he was dead. The petitioner, who is the widow of Batai Mohan, participated in the proceeding. The proceeding was continued against the petitioner. The petitioner through her Advocate submitted objection on 14-10-1976, indicating that there was incorrect recording in the draft statement in respect of land situated in village Baulojholi which was sold away in the year 1972 and that the same should have been excluded from the computation of the ceiling area. The classification of the land as Class II wet land was disputed on the ground that the land in reality was Class III rain-fed land. After considering the objection and after hearing the Advocate for the petitioner, the draft statement was confirmed and it was held that she was in possession of Ac.10.833 of land of various categories equivalent to 4.030 standard acres and that the said land being over and above the ceiling limit was to vest in the State Government free from encumbrances. The order was pronounced in open Court on 5-1-1977. That very day the petitioner submitted her option statement. The draft statement was finalised on 5-2-1977 by the Revenue Officer (opposite party No. 1) with a finding that the appeal period was over and there was no intimation of any appeal having been filed. The confirmed statement was directed to be published by affixing a copy in the notice board for 15 days. A copy of the final statement was served on the petitioner by the process server on 22-2-1977. There is some amount of dispute raised as to whether the said copy was really served. We shall deal with this aspect later on. The surplus land in question was distributed to landless persons by order of the Revenue Officer dated 4-3-1977 and the allottees were inducted on the land. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on 7-7-1977 and received the same on 30-7-1977. An appeal was filed before opposite party No. 2 on 19-1-1979. A petition for condonation was filed stating that the petitioner was absent from her village and was ailing and, therefore, there was delay in presenting the appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjan (opposite party No. 2) holding that the same was barred by limitation. He disbelieved the plea of the petitioner that there was no service of the copy of the final statement on her on 22-2-1977 and that the signature was not genuine. He found that the petitioner had not signed and on the other hand there was a thumb impression of her which was obtained in the presence of one witness. He also did not accept the grounds indicated for the delayed presentation of the appeal holding that there was no material to support the contention raised. The appellate order (Annexure-3) passed on 2-4-1979 was assailed before the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Southern Division, Orissa, Berhampur in Revision Case No. 180 of 1982. The said authority on consideration of the materials came to hold that the appellate authority had rightly dismissed the appeal and that there was no acceptable ground for interference with the order. This order dated 8-11-1982 is Annexure-4 to the writ application. As aforesaid, the orders in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 are impugned in this writ application.

(3.) Mr. Ratho, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the authorities have acted with material irregularity and their orders suffer from several infirmities which vitiate them. Even though several grounds of challenge were indicated in the writ application and were initially urged for our consideration, ultimately Mr. Ratho confined his challenge to three grounds of attack as to the sustainability of the orders in question. They are as follows: