JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner owns 1484 acres of land in Khunti No. 148 of village Baunsara under Dhama Police Station In the district of Sambalpur. She claims to be a 'person under disability' within the meaning of Section 2(21) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (16 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Opposite party No. 1 is Bhag Chasi under the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an application u/s 15 of the Act for recovery of arrears of rent. The Revenue Officer, Sambalpur by his order (Annexure 1) dated 5-7-1972 in L.R. Case No. 14 of 1971 held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing Annexure-1 by issue of a writ of certiorari. 2. The short question for consideration is whether a person under disability is entitled to recover arrears of rent from a Bhag Chasi u/s 15 of the Act. Section 2(31) defines a ?tenant? thus: 'tenant' means a person who has no rights in the land of another but under the system generally known as Bhag, Sanja or Kata or such similar expression as under any other system, law, contract, custom or usage personally cultivates such land on payment of rent in cash or in kind or in both or on condition of delivery to that person: (a) either a share of the produce of such land; or (b) the estimated value of a portion of the crop, raised on the land; or (c) a fixed quantity of produce irrespective of the yield from the land; or (d) produce or its estimated value partly in any of the ways described above and partly in another; It would appear from the definition that a Bhag Chasi satisfying the other conditions specified in the sub-section comes within the definition of ?tenant?, Section 2(21)(a) defines a person under disability?. The Petitioner is a widow and has obtained a certificate of disability u/s 56-A of the Act. Section 2(17) defines a ?landlord? thus: ?Landlord? means a person immediately under whom land is held by a raiyat or a tenant. Admittedly, opposite party No. 1 holds land immediately under the Petitioner. There is therefore relationship of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1. Section 2(17) defines a ?landlord? thus: ?Landlord? means a person immediately under whom land is held by a raiyat or a tenant. Admittedly, opposite party No. 1 holds land immediately under the Petitioner. There is therefore relationship of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1. 3, Section 15(1) so far as relevant runs thus: Any claim for recovery of arrears of rent by a landlord and any dispute between a landlord and his raiyat or tenant, as the case may be, as regards: (a) the quantum of the rent payable; or (b) tenant?s possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under this Act; or (c) the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant u/s 14; or (d) the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant; shall be decided by the Revenue Officer on an application to be filed by any party interested: x x x x As has already been stated, the application for recovery of arrears of rent was filed by the Petitioner who is,a landlord against opposite party No. 1 who is a tenant and as such the Revenue Officer gets jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties under the section. The learned Revenue Officer therefore failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by taking a wrong view of the law. 4. In course of argument, Mr. Mohapatra learned Advocate for the Petitioner brought to our notice a Circular issued by the Revenue Department bearing No. 28931-Re-8/70/R. dated 26-5-1970 (vide A Compilation of Circulars and Orders issued by Revenue Department, Bhubaneswar page 218). The Circular gives clear instruction that dispute of the aforesaid nature is not entertain able by a Revenue Officer u/s 15 of the Act. The Circular purports to have been issued on the basis of an observation of this Court in Madan Madhuala and Others Vs. Upendra Nath Shaw and Others. This Division Bench decision refers to recovery of arrears of rent under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955. Therein it was observed that the Orissa Tenants Relief Act did not authorise the Collector to entertain a claim for rent. That decision has no application to Section 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act which in clearest terms confers jurisdiction on the Revenue Officer to entertain claims for recovery of rent by a landlord from a tenant. Therein it was observed that the Orissa Tenants Relief Act did not authorise the Collector to entertain a claim for rent. That decision has no application to Section 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act which in clearest terms confers jurisdiction on the Revenue Officer to entertain claims for recovery of rent by a landlord from a tenant. The Circular is obviously the outcome of misconception in appreciating the principles laid down in the aforesaid Bench decision. 5. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure-1) is quashed. A writ of certiorari be accordingly issued. In the circumstances, parties are to bear their own costs. The case may be quickly disposed of by the Revenue Officer. B.K. Patra, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed