Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1165 (ORI)

Subash Kumar Baral v. State of Orissa

2008-12-18

A.S.NAIDU

body2008
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. 1. Heard. The Order Dated 25.08.2007 passed by Learned Member, Board of Revenue in O.S.S. Case No. 36/2003 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The Collector, Puri filed the aforesaid revision invoking jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act") assailing the order dtd. 24.02.1988 passed by the Settlement Officer, Puri in Appeal Case No. 1787/1982. 2. Mr. Rath, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, forcefully submitted that the Settlement operation is still in progress in mouza Konark in the district of Puri & at present proceedings/petitions/objections under Section 22 of the Act are dealt with. It is further stated that thereafter Section 23 stage will come & after disposal of all objections, record of rights shall be finally published. Relying upon Section 25 of the Act, Mr. Rath submitted that only after the R.O.R. is finally published the Member Board of Revenue shall have jurisdiction to entertain any revision filed against the said recording. Mr. Rath further contends that the Settlement authorities are bound by the decisions made & orders passed under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act & have no jurisdiction to examine the propriety or otherwise of such decisions/orders. 3. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner & Learned Counsel for the State, this Court finds that the second contention raised by Mr. Rath is with regard to the merit of the case & the same needs no determination at this stage. So far as the first contention is concerned, Learned Addl. Government Advocate clearly submitted that there is no provision to file a revision under Section 32 of the Act assailing the order under Section22 in an appeal. But then if according to Mr. Rath the Member, Board of Revenue lacks initial jurisdiction to entertain a Revision filed by the Collector under Section 32 of the Act, it is open for him to raise the question of jurisdiction at the very threshold before the Member, Board of Revenue. It appears that the revision cases filed by the Collector, Puri are still pending before the Learned Member, Board of Revenue. 4. In the aforesaid position, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition giving liberty to the Petitioner to file suitable petitions before the revisional authority with regard to maintainability of the revisions if the revision cases are still pending. It appears that the revision cases filed by the Collector, Puri are still pending before the Learned Member, Board of Revenue. 4. In the aforesaid position, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition giving liberty to the Petitioner to file suitable petitions before the revisional authority with regard to maintainability of the revisions if the revision cases are still pending. It is needless to say that if such petitions are filed, the revisional authority shall do well to dispose of the same in accordance with law before proceeding to the merit. 5. It is further made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion with regard to the merit of the case & the Learned Member, Board of Revenue shall decide the issues strictly in accordance with law. 6. Let status quo as on date with regard to the disputed lands be maintained till a decision is taken by the revisional authority.