JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The core question which falls for determination in this case is whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioners and opp. party No. 4, Balakrushna Panigrahi, within the meaning of Section 2 (31) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in respect of the land in dispute. The land in question is 22 acres in extent in village Nuagaon, 2.The revisional order of the Additional District Magistrate,Ganjam (opp. party No 3) dated 23-12-1989(Annexure-9) in which he set aside the appellate order of the Officer-on-Special Duty (opp party No. 2) dated 29-9-1937 (Annexure-5) and confirmed the order of the Revenue Officer, Digapahandi (opp. Party No 1), dated 22-1-1987 (Annexure 4) is assailed in the writ petition. The petitioners have prayed tor quashing the order as per Annexures- 4 and 9. 3. The proceedings were initiated on the applications filed by the petitioners individually in the year 1975 u/s 36-A of the. Act for a declaration that the lands in their position are non-resumable and for determining the fair and equitable rent of the same. Their case, shortly stated, was that they are in cultivating possession of the lands since the time of their forefather for periods ranging between 25 to 40 years on payment of rent to the landlord(opp. party No. 4), that since 1975 the landlord with an ulterior motive refused to accept rent from them. 4. The opp. party No 4 refuted the claim of the petitioners. He denied that they had cultivated his land at any point of time or had paid any rent to him. His case was that the entire land was in his personal cultivation; that in 1975 on the Instigation of U. N. Samaratra with whom he had political rivalry the petitioners trespassed upon the land and raised false claims of tenancy in respect of the same. 5. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. After the first round of challenge before the appellate authority and before this Court in OJC 1901 of 1980 the case was remitted to the Revenue Officer for fresh disposal. The case was again considered by the Revenue Officer, who rejected the petitions holding that the petitioners had failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between themselves and opp. party No. 4. The case was again considered by the Revenue Officer, who rejected the petitions holding that the petitioners had failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between themselves and opp. party No. 4. The appellate authority set aside the order, accepted the plea of tenancy of the petitioners and directed the Revenue Officer to issue certificates u/s 29 of the Act vide order dated 22-1-1987 (Annexure-5). The revisional authority set at naught the order of the appellate authority and confirmed the order of the Revenue Officer vide Annexure-9. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for quashing* the order as per Annexures- 4 and 9 to the writ application. 6. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, the point formulated earlier arises for determination. The answer to the question depends on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and appreciation of the evidence on record by the statutory authorities. Section 2 (31) of the Act defines 'tenant' to mean 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. Section 4 of the Act enumerates the parsons who shall be deemed to be raiyats for the purpose of the Act in respect of the land held by them and vests power in the Revenue Officer to declare a person as a raiyat on submission of application by him. The manner of exorcise of such power and the procedure to be followed In the proceeding are also laid down therein. In Sub-Section (8-b) of Section 4 suo motu power is also vested in the Reveue Officer to initiate a proceeding to declare a person or his successor-in-interest as raiyat. The manner of exorcise of such power and the procedure to be followed In the proceeding are also laid down therein. In Sub-Section (8-b) of Section 4 suo motu power is also vested in the Reveue Officer to initiate a proceeding to declare a person or his successor-in-interest as raiyat. Under Section 26 of the Act provision is made for the landlord and the tenant to apply to the Revenue Officer for issue of certificate specifying separately the particulars of the resumable and the non-resumable lands. The certificate is to be issued u/s 29 which provides. inter alia, that after the disposal of appeal, if any, from the orders under Sections 27 and 23 preferred within the period specified in Section 63, the Revenue Officer, having regard to the alterations and modifications, if any, ordered in such appeal shall issue a certificate in the prescribed form to the landlord and also to the tenant specifying all matters to be determined under the said sections and shall also send a copy of such certificate to the authority competent to maintain the record of rights. Section 32 of the Act mandates that a certificate issued u/s 29 shall be c inclusive proof of the correctness of the contents thereof in respect of all disputes between the tenant and the persons whose rights stand extinguished in pursuance of Section 31. Section 27 makes provision for vesting of powers in the Revenue Officer to determine particulars of resumable and non-resumable lands along with other matters required to be determined under Sections 27 and 28. in a case where both the landlord and the tenant fail to apply in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act. Section 36-A under which the proceedings in the present cast were initialed reads as follows ; "36-A. Tenant to become raiyat in respect of the whole of the land in certain cases-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, but subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 24. the Revenue Officer ' may on an application made in that behalf by the tenant within two years from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act. the Revenue Officer ' may on an application made in that behalf by the tenant within two years from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act. 1973 (Presidents Act, 17 of 1973) and after giving the parties interested an opportunity of being heard and after consulting the local committee, if any, declare the whole of the land in cultivation of the tenant to be non-resumable and determine the fair and equitable rent and the comoensation payable by the tenant in respect of the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 and on such determination, the Provisions of Sections 29 to 33(Both inclusive). 35. A and 36 shall, so far as may be apply : Provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply to any land where- (a) the particulars of the resumable and non-resumable portions thereof have already been determined u/s 27 or u/s 35, or (b) proceeding for the determination of such particulars are pending. .Explanation-For the purpose of this section "tenant" shall include a tenant whose application u/s 26 was rejected prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 1975 on the ground of default or non-proseuution on the part of the tenant and a tenant in respect of whom a case initiated u/s 35 was terminated prior to the said date on any such ground. (2) The Revenue Officer may also on his own motion, take all such action and in such manner as is provided in Sub-section (1) at any time within three years from the commencement of the said Act: Provided that where the period of limitation specified in Sub-section (1) is extended by any further period u/s 63. The period of three years as aforesaid shall stand equally extended : (3) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the Revenue Officer, while proceeding under this section, shall have power to decide any dispute as regards the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant or as to the identity of the tenant." 7. The period of three years as aforesaid shall stand equally extended : (3) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the Revenue Officer, while proceeding under this section, shall have power to decide any dispute as regards the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant or as to the identity of the tenant." 7. From the statutory provisions noticed above, it is clear that under the schema of the Act,the land held by a tenant under a landlord will be ascertained by the Revenue Officer and fair and equitable rent there of will be determined on application made by the parties or suo motu on such determination the lands held by the tenant may be wholly or partly declared as non-resumable: the order of the Revenue Officer is subject to scrutiny by the appellate and revisional authorities and subject to any correction made by such authorities; the order is to be treated as final and thereafter a certificate giving particulars of the non-resumable lands shall be issued in favour of the tenant. 8. In the present case, the dispute, in essence, is whether the petitioners were tenants under the opp. party No. 4 in respect of the lands in their possession. To be more specific, the question is whether they were tenants in respect of the said lands prior to 1975, because there is no dispute that since 1975 they were in possession of such lands which according to opp. party No. 4 was forcible and unauthorised while according to the petitioners they continued to hold the lands as tenants but paid no rent since the landlord refused to accept rent from them. In the order of the Revenue Officer as per Annexure- 4, the authority has discussed in detail, the case of the parties, the contentions raised on their behalf, the chequered history of the proceeding, the observation and directions made by the appellate authority from time to time, and the direction and observations made by this Court. He has also discussed the observations made by the appellate authority against his previous order and has dealt with them point-wise. He has also assessed the evidence led by the parties and has given cogent reasons for not accepting the petitioners' case. He has also discussed the observations made by the appellate authority against his previous order and has dealt with them point-wise. He has also assessed the evidence led by the parties and has given cogent reasons for not accepting the petitioners' case. It is relevant to note here that the claim of tenancy of the petitioners entirely rest on oral evidence and no documentary evidence has been placed in support of such claim. The Revenue Officer has also given reasons for accepting the case of the opp. party No. 4 that on the instigation of U. N. Samantra who had some political rivalry with him, the petitioners forcibly occupied the lands and raised false claims of tenancy. In conclusion, he held: "...In this case, none of the petitioners could establish a single ingredient of tenancy. Their possession on the land is in some other form than tenancy. Beyond all reasonable doubts, I find no relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the parties." 9. The appellate authority, however, differed from the observations and findings recorded by the Revenue Officer. He did not attach any importance to the total absence of any documentary evidence in support of the petitioners claim of tenancy. He also did not attach any importance to non-payment of rent by the petitioners even after disputes arose between the parties in the year 1975. He brushed aside these relevant aspects of the case with the observation that landlords like the opp. party No. 4 usually do not grant receipts for payment of Bhagment and if a tenant demands such receipt dispute regarding his tenancy is raised. Referring to the opinions expressed by the village committee from time to time, the appellate authority took the view that the petitioners were cultivating the case lands since long. He posed the question that if the petitioners did not cultivate the case lands, then how were they utilising their ploughs and bullocks ? In the absence of any material to show that they were possessing any other lands in the village, he presumed that the petitioners must have been cultivating the case lands as claimed by them. He posed the question that if the petitioners did not cultivate the case lands, then how were they utilising their ploughs and bullocks ? In the absence of any material to show that they were possessing any other lands in the village, he presumed that the petitioners must have been cultivating the case lands as claimed by them. The material portion of the order as per Annexure-5 reads as follows : "Evidence on record shows that the appellants were cultivating lands as tanants as defined u/s 2 (31) of the Act under the respondent and therefore I accept their claims u/s 36 A of the Act. In the above circumstances of the case, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Revenue Officer, Digapahandi with directions to issue certificate under Section29 of the Act to the appellants in respect of non-resumable land and to take such further actions as provided under law and dispose of the case." 10. The revisional authority, as the order Annexure-9 shows, did not accept the analysis made and the reasons slatted by the appellate authority. He was inclined to favour the decision taken by the Revenue Officer in the matter. Recounting the discussions and observations made by the Revenue Officer in his order, the revisional authority applied the principle of law that mere long possession of the land is not sufficient to accept the petitioners' claim of tenancy under Sec 36-A of the Act. He assessed the materials on record and was of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to establish that they are tenants within the meaning ol Sections, 2(31) of the Act in respect of the lands in question. Ha further observed that the Revenue Officer had duly and faithfully carried out the directions of this Court in the judgement in OJC No. 1901/8 and other cases. Ha therefore, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the appellate authority and upheld the order of the Revenue Officer. 11. We have perused the orders passed by the statutory authorities as per Annexures 4, 5 and 9. We have also perused the judgment of this Court in OJC No. 1901 to 1913 of 1980. It is our considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned orders as per Annexures-4 and 9 is called for. We have also perused the judgment of this Court in OJC No. 1901 to 1913 of 1980. It is our considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned orders as per Annexures-4 and 9 is called for. As analysed by the statutory authorities the moot question for determination was whether the claim of the petitioners that they were tenants of the case lands since long (since time of their forefathers) under the opp. party No. 4 is acceptable. The onus to establish the case squarely rested on the petitioners Excepting citing some oral evidence they did not produce any documentary evidence directly or indirectly showing that they were cultivating the lands on payment of rent to the landlord. Regarding offer of rent to the landlord or any complaint about non-acceptance of the same or non-grant of receipt or refusal to grant receipt for the rent, no evidence was placed by the petitioners. Even, the oral evidence, as appears from the order of the Revenue Officer does not show payment of any rent for the land to the landlord. All that appears from the evidence is that, the petitioners have been in cultivating possession of the land since long. For all these lacunae in the case, the only examination that appears to have been offered by the petitioners is that the opp. party No. 4 is a big landlord and they are landless persons. Such explanation may have a relevance for appreciation of evidence on record, but that cannot be a total substitute for non-compliance with the minimum statutory requirements to establish a case under Sections 36-A of the Act. It is to be borne in mind that the status of a raiyat is to be acquired under the statute on fulfilling the conditions prescribed in it. The Revenue Officer and the revisional authority rightly applies the principle of law that mere possession of the property is not sufficient to establish such status. On perusal of the appellate authority's order, it appears that he merely made certain general observations about common experience in such matters, the intent and purpose of the statute to benefit tenants, etc. Some of the observations, we are constrained to observe, are surmises and conjectures. On perusal of the appellate authority's order, it appears that he merely made certain general observations about common experience in such matters, the intent and purpose of the statute to benefit tenants, etc. Some of the observations, we are constrained to observe, are surmises and conjectures. He did not make any serious attempt to assess the materials on record or to meet the observations and the findings of the Revenue Officer. He has not recorded any positive finding showing that the petitioners' claim of tenancy is acceptable. As noted earlier, he drew the presumption that the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the lands as tenants merely because they had ploughs and bullocks and no material was available to show that they were utilised for cultivation of any other land. The question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case as available on the record. It is not for this Court in a writ of certiorari to re-assess the evidence on record and come to an independent conclusion. 12. On careful consideration of the entire matter, we do not find that the impugned orders as per Annexures-4 and 9 suffer from any serious illegality or infirmity. We, therefore decline to interfere with the same. 13. In the result, the writ application is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order for cost. S.K. Mohanty, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed