SARDAR SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Expressing doubt about correctness of certain conclusions arrived at by a Division Bench of this Court in Mahadev Sasmal alias Samal and Ors. v. State of Orissa and other ; 1991 (I) OLR 374, another Division Bench has referred the matter to the Full Bench to test correctness of the earlier decisions.

(2.) DISPUTE relates to scope and ambit of Section 8 of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short, the 'Act'). View with which latter Division Bench did not concur has been expressed in Mahadev Sasmal's case (supra), in the following terms : 'Sec. 8 of the Act is a provision laying down the grounds of eviction of a raiyat. This provision, which declares the grounds does not state the machinery to put such grounds into implementation. Necessary provision for their implementation in Section 12 which contemplates that an application is to be made by the landlord before the Revenue Officer in the prescribed manner within sixty days from the date on which the dispute arises and that the Revenue Officer, after making such enquiry as may be necessary, shall pass necessary orders as he deems fit. It is conceded by the learned Additional Government Advocate that neither Section 8 or 12 nor any other provision in the Act authorises the Revenue Officer to start a suo motu proceeding for eviction of a raiyat on the basis of the grounds enumerated in Section 8. It is brought to our notice that the proceeding was started on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector only. It is nowhere shown that such a proceeding can be commenced on the basis of a report of the Revenue Inspector. Even where the State is the landlord, as in the present case, a petition for eviction of a raiyat on any of the grounds specified in Section 8(1) has to be filed on behalf of the State and the Revenue Officer as the statutory authority, is to cause the enquiry and decide the dispute but he cannot initiate a proceeding suo motu himself and decide the Us himself. In that event the Revenue Officer would be combining in himself both the functions of the accuser and the judge which is violative of the very concept of a judicial determination.' In essence it was observed : (i) that the determination as contemplated in Section 12 of the O.L.R. Act is a judicial determination; (ii) that the accuser and the judge can never be the same person; (iii) that Section 8 of the O.L.R. Act merely enumerates the grounds of the eviction; (iv) that a notice for eviction issued Under Section 8(2) of the Act is initiation of a suo motu proceeding and (v) that notice for eviction or a proceeding for eviction cannot be initiated on the basis of a report of the Revenue Inspector. The latter Division Bench held that true import of Section 8 has not been considered in the earlier case. It is relevant to note here that after judgment in Mahadev Sasmal's case was rendered, a new provision i.e. Section 8 -A has been inserted in the Act to be operative from 1st July, 1994. The said provision i.e. Sections 8 and 8 -A read as follows : '8. Eviction of raiyats - (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act and notwithstanding any contract, custom or usage or decree or order of any Court, a raiyat shall be liable to eviction only if he - - - - - (a) has used the land comprised in his holding in a manner which renders it unfit for the purposes of agriculture; or (b) has leased out the land in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 or has failed to cultivate the land personally: or (c) has used the land for any purpose other than agriculture. Explanation - The construction of a house for the residence of the raiyat and his family members together with all necessary out -houses shall be deemed to be for agricultural purposes. (2) A raiyat liable to eviction under Sub -section (1) shall be entitled to three months' notice in writing from the landlord intimating his intention to so evict and the grounds therefor : Provided that such eviction on the grounds specified in Clause (a) of Sub -section (1), shall not take effect unless the raiyat, within a period of one year from the date of service to such notice, fails to restore the land to a condition fit for agriculture.' '8 -A( 1). Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 8, - (a) XX XX XX XX (b) in every case where the authorised officer allows conversion of any agricultural land under clause (a), the raiyat shall be deemed to have surrendered his raiyati -right in respect of the land in favour of the Government and thereafter the land shall be settled on lease basis, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, with the person whose raiyati -right is so deemed to have been surrendered, subject to, and with effect from the date of payment by him in the prescribed manner the premium for such land calculated at the rate specified in Sub -section (3) and every such settlement shall be deemed to have been made under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962; (c) where the conversion of the use of any agricultural land by a raiyat for purposes other than agriculture has been made prior to the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1993, it shall be deemed that the raiyat has surrendered his raiyati -right in respect of that land in favour of the Government and, in every such case, the land shall be deemed to have been settled, on lease basis under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962, with the person whose raiyati -right is so deemed to have been surrendered or, where the land has been transferred by the raiyat to any other person prior to such commencement, with the transferee, and the person, with whom the land shall be so deemed to have been settled, shall pay, within such period and in such manner, a premium in respect of that land calculated at the rate equivalent to fifty per centum of the rate of premium specified against that category of land in Sub -section (3). Provided that if the premium so payable is not paid within the prescribed period it shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.' There is no dispute raised about applicability of Section 8 -A.

(3.) SECOND question that falls for determination is whether Section 8 of the Act merely enumerates ground for eviction. A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that it not only enumerates grounds of eviction but also authorities the landlord to ask the defaulting tenants to vacate by giving notice in writing intimating his intention to so evict and grounds for such eviction, on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 8 (1) of the Act. When a notice is given by the landlord directing to vacate for any of the grounds mentioned in Section 8 (1) of the Act, it means exercise of landlord's power to seek eviction of the tenant on any or combination of the ground mentioned therein, and does not amount to initiation of any proceeding. The State has to act through its officers and functionaries operating in the field. When the Revenue Officer issues any notice to the tenant as contemplated Under Section 8(2) he exercises power on behalf of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant. On receipt of such notice, the tenant may vacate the land if he finds that he has no defence. In such an event, there is no necessity for any determination and the landlord will take possession from the tenant. View expressed in Mahadev Sasmal's case (supra) to the effect that without a determination or order passed under Section 12, State cannot take possession of the concerned land even where tenant does not object to the same does not appear to be correct. If a landlord finds a tenant i.e. a raiyat has committed any of the acts mentioned in Section 8 (1) of the Act, latter becomes liable to be evicted after service of three months' notice, in case of commission of acts covered under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 8 (1), and after one year from the date of service of such notice in case of an act covered under clause (a) of Section 8 (1) of the Act, if he fails to restore the land to a condition fit for agriculture within the aforesaid time of one year. Proviso to Section 8 (2) makes the position clear. Section 12 of the Act is also relevant. Same reads as follows : '12. Decision of disputes among landlords and raiyats - (1) Any dispute between a raiyat and his landlords relating to - (i) the landlord's right to evict the raiyat Under Section 8; or (ii) the rights conferred Under Sections 4, 9 and 10; (iii) the raiyat's right to possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under this Act; shall be decided by the Revenue Officer on an application to be filled by any person interested : Provided that such application shall be filed before the Revenue Officer in the prescribed manner within sixty days from the date on which the dispute arises. (2) On receipt of an application under Sub -section (1) the Revenue Officer shall, after making such enquiry as may be necessary pass such order as he deems fit. (3) The Revenue Officer may take such further steps as he may consider necessary to give effect to the orders passed under Sub -section (2).' Upon receipt of notice raiyat may vacate or may deny the allegations and question landlord's right to invoke its power of eviction Under Section 8(1) of the Act. If a dispute is raised by raiyat as regards landlord's allegation or questions his right, determination has to be made Under Section 12 at the instance of any of the parties. Upon receipt of a notice Under Section 8(2) of the Act, a raiyat may file an application before the Revenue Officer raising dispute about landlord's right and grounds mentioned in the notice within sixty days of the date of receipt of notice. On a bare reading of Section 12 it is clear that dispute covered by first two of the enumerated categories can be raised by the raiyat and the third category by either the landlord or the raiyat. If such a dispute is raised by the raiyat before landlord regarding his right to seek eviction, the latter is required to make an application before the Revenue Officer to determine dispute as raised within sixty days from the date of receipt of raiyat's objection. Once raiyat raises objection either before the landlord or before the Revenue Officer, he cannot be asked to vacate without a determination Under Section 12 of the Act. It is not correct to say that even if no dispute is raised by the raiyat questioning right of landlord to evict, there is yet necessity for making an application Under Section 12 of the Act. To that extent, view expressed in Mahadey Sasmal's case (supra) is not correct. Further, a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 8 and 12 makes the position clear that issuance of notice Under Section 8(2) is not initiation of a proceeding Under Section 12 of the Act. That being the position, the view expressed in Mahadev Sasmal's case (supra) that Revenue Officer issue notice Under Section 8(2) on the basis of a report of the Revenue Inspector regarding commission of an act contemplated Under Section 8(1) of the Act is not supportable. The reference is accordingly answered. Let the matter be placed before the Division Bench for disposal. P.K. Tripathy, J.