JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the Ex-Intermediary of the Kolabira estate in the district of Sambalpur questioning the correctness and legality of the direction given by the Compensation Officer of Sambalpur whereby the Petitioner has been required to produce a certificate of succession in respect of the compensation money for the estate. 2. Sometime in 1952 the Kolabira estate vested in the State of Orissa under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abortion Act, 1951 (Act I of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner's grandfather Nruplal Singh was then alive and proceedings for determining the compensation payable under the aforesaid Act were initiated by the Compensation Officer. On 1-1-1257 Nruplal Singh died. By then the final Assessment Roll had not been prepared. The Petitioner's father Bir Mahendra Singh was brought on record and the compensation Officer, opposite party No. 2, in Compensation Case No. 1 of 1954 by order dated 20-9-1962 held that no certificate of succession was necessary for holding that Bir Mahendra Singh was entitled to the compensation. Immediately after Bir Mahendra Singh was brought into the record on 21-9-1962 the Assessment Roll was finally published and Bir Mahendra Singh was paid about a lakh of rupees out of the compensation determined. On 6-3-1963 Bir Mahendra Singh died. The Petitioner as the eldest son and on the footing that succession to the estate was governed by the rule of primogeniture applied for being brought into the record as the person to whom the compensation or the estate was payable and wanted the balance compensation to be paid to him. Bir Mahendra Singh left 3 sons-the Petitioner and opposite parties 4 and 5 in this application. Opposite Parties 4 and 5 filed affidavits before the Compensation Officer saying that the Petitioner was entitled to receive the compensation and they had no objection if the entire compensation was paid to the Petitioner. Notwithstanding these facts, by order dated 8.5.1965 the Compensation Officer directed the production of a certificate of secession. His direction is as follows: You are hereby informed to produce secession certificate from a Court of competent jurisdiction within a fortnight from the date of receipt of this notice failing which the Court will take action according to law. 3. Mr. Notwithstanding these facts, by order dated 8.5.1965 the Compensation Officer directed the production of a certificate of secession. His direction is as follows: You are hereby informed to produce secession certificate from a Court of competent jurisdiction within a fortnight from the date of receipt of this notice failing which the Court will take action according to law. 3. Mr. R. Mohanty for the Petitioner contends that the direction for production of a certificate of succession is wholly misconceived and is without jurisdiction. Mr. Mohanty further contends that under the provisions of the Act it is the duty of the Compensation Officer to determine the question as to who secedes to the intermediary in order to receive compensation, and the Compensation Officer has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and has given an illegal direction to the Petitioner to produce a certificate of secession by shirking his own duties. 4. The correctness of Mr. Mohanty's submission requires the relevant provisions of the Act to be examined. Chapter V of the Act provides for assessment of compensation and Chapter VI for payment of compensation. Section 35 occurring in Chapter V, so for as relevant, provides: (1) A Compensation Officer may, on application or of his own motion, at any time before payment of compensation in accordance with a Compensation Assessment roll u/s 37, correct any entry in the Compensation Assessment roll as finally published in respect of any estate to which such Compensation Assessment roll relates or any entry in such Compensation Assessment roll which, he is satisfied, has been made owing to a bona fide mistake or is necessary as a result of succession to or transfer of the interest of an intermediary or any other person whose name appears in such roll as a person entitled to compensation. Section 37(2) occurring in Chapter VI provides: (2) The amount of compensation so payable in terms of a Compensation Assessment roll as finally published shall be paid as hereinafter provided to the person or persons entitled thereto according to the said roll and in case of death of person or persons so entitled before the compensation is received by him or them to his or their legal representatives. As it appears from the scheme underlying the aforesaid provisions the Compensation Officer has jurisdiction to determine in the case of the death of an intermediary in whose favour compensation has been assessed, who is the person entitled to receive the compensation as the legal representative. As such, it was the duty of the Compensation Officer in this case to determine if the Petitioner was the person entitled to the compensation on the death of his father, and it was not open to the Compensation Officer to direct the Petitioner to obtain a certificate of succession to entitle him to the compensation determined under the Act. We find that the State Government in the Revenue Department had issued a circular giving similar directions to the Compensation Officers. A portion of the said circular bearing No. EA-V-19/57-557 R., dated 9-1-1958 may be extracted for convenience: I am directed to say that there seems to be no necessity for framing any rule or amending any rule for payment in cases of death of the intermediaries, to their legal representatives. Section 35(1) of the O.E.A. Act imposes a statutory duty on the Compensation Officer to correct the entry in the Compensation Assessment Ron to enable him to make the payment to the legal representative of the deceased Intermediary. Section 37(2) of the Act also casts such a duty on the Officer to make the payment in terms of the Assessment roll as finally published in the case of the death of an Intermediary or Intermediaries to his or their legal representatives without proper materials, therefore, before the Compensation Officer about the claim of persons as legal representatives of the deloused intermediary, the Compensation Officer cannot carry out the provisions made in these two sections. He has therefore, to make an enquiry into the claim as to who is the proper legal representative of the deceased before taking further action and Section 42 clothes him with power to follow the procedure laid down in the CPC for the purpose of his enquiry. Thus under the provisions of the Act itself he can make an enquiry to satisfy himself as to who is the legal representative and there is no necessity for change of the rules. The instruction contained in the aforesaid circular seems to be on the proper line and based upon the statutory provisions. Thus under the provisions of the Act itself he can make an enquiry to satisfy himself as to who is the legal representative and there is no necessity for change of the rules. The instruction contained in the aforesaid circular seems to be on the proper line and based upon the statutory provisions. In view of this position in law the direction contained in the letter dated 8-5-1965 of the Compensation Officer issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to produce a certificate of secession is without any legal basis and, therefore, has to be quashed. 5. We issue a writ of certiorari quashing the said direction and command opposite party No. 2 to hold au enquiry in order to determine if the Petitioner is the proper person to be substituted as the legal representative of the deceased intermediary for the purposes of payment of compensation under the Act. He will take into account the two affidavits of opposite parties 4 and 5 who are the brothers of the Petitioner and on the basis of the facts disclosed at the enquiry determine if the Petitioner is the proper claimant for receiving the compensation. 6. This writ application is, therefore, allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 100/-(one hundred). Final Result : Allowed