Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 721 (ORI)

FULA DEI v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-08-19

SANJU PANDA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In this writ petition challenge has been made by the Petitioners to the order dated 9.12.1987 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhawanipatna, opposite party No. 4 in OLR Appeal Case No. 4 of 1987, vide Annexure-3, the order dated 15.2.1988 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (LR), Kalahandi, opposite party No. 3. in OLR Revision Case No. 1 of 1988, vide Annexure-4, and the order dated 23.2.1996 passed by the Commissioner Land Reforms, Orissa, Cuttack, opposite party No. 2. in OLR Revision No. 9 of 1995, vide Annexure-5. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; A suo motu ceiling proceeding u/s 42 of the OLR Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was initiated by the Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Lanjigarh in the year 1981 against one Shyam Kumar Sahu, the husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 for determination of ceiling surplus land on the ground that Shyam Kumar Sahu was in possession of an area of Ac.64.25 decimals of land which was in excess of the ceiling limit and the same was the subject-matter of OLR Case No. 29 of ] 98 L A draft statement was issued to Shy am Kumar Sahu showing the land particulars. Receiving the draft statement, he tiled an objection contending, inter alia, that holding No. 34 having an area of Ac.19,48 decimals was recorded jointly with his brother, holding No. 14 of an area of Ac.28.33 decimals of land and holding No. 24 an area of Ac.5.09 decimals of land were inherited property of his wife Fula Sahu from her father and subsequently those properties had been donated to his daughters. i.e. present Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, at the time of their marriage in the form of dowry prior to 26.7.1965 and the married daughters are in peaceful possession of the said properties His further case "vas that Ac.2.0 1 decimals of land included house site, bari and thrashing Hoar and as such those lands were to be excluded from the ceiling determination. With the above facts, he prayed that there was no ceiling surplus land with him and the proceeding was liable to be dropped. With the above facts, he prayed that there was no ceiling surplus land with him and the proceeding was liable to be dropped. The Revenue Officer, Lanjigarh after hearing Shyam Kumar Sahu came to the conclusion vide order dated 27.5.1983 that the holder was in excess of an area of Ac.6.68 decimals of his ceiling limit and directed for vesting of the said land with the State Government. The Revenue Officer did not consider the objection of Shyam Kumar Sahu in respect of holding Nos. 14 and 24 which were the separate properties of the wife of Shyam Kumar Sahu who got those lands from her father. Therefore, Shyam Kumar Sahu and Ors. filed OLR Appeal No. 4 of 1983 before the Sub Divisional Office, Bhawanipatna. In support of their contention, they filed an R.O.R of the year 1955-56 wherein the name of present Petitioner No. 1 was shown as the recorded owner of the land and it was also stated that she donated the land to her daughters at the time of their marriage and filed a document to that effect and their names were recorded as such. The Sub-Divisional Officer after hearing the Petitioners came to hold that the enquiry of the Revenue Officer was not clear whether the land was donated at the time of the marriage of the daughters or not arid the land holder was not given any reasonable opportunity to select the parcel of land to be retained by her. Therefore, he set aside the order passed by the Revenue Officer vide his order dated 13.12.1983 and remanded the matter again to the Revenue Officer for fresh disposal vide Annexure-2. On remand, the Revenue Officer again without issuing notice to the Petitioners and without their knowledge and behind their back disposed of the matter taking the earlier view on 27.5.1983. Thereafter the Petitioners filed OLR Appeal No. 4 of 1987 against the said order of the Revenue Officer. I he Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the appeal with an observation that it would have been proper on his part to remand the case again for disposal after proper enquiry, but as the objection petitions were more or less the same, the findings of the Revenue Officer after local enquiry were proper and probable. Admittedly, without any further enquiry whether the lands were transferred prior to 1960, he dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 9.12.1987. Admittedly, without any further enquiry whether the lands were transferred prior to 1960, he dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 9.12.1987. Against the said order, the Petitioners filed revision before the A.D.M. Land Reforms, Kalahandi in OLR Revision Case No. 1 of 1988. The revisional authority dismissed the revision on 15.2.1998. Thereafter, the Petitioners moved the Commissioner Land Reforms u/s 59(2) of the Act in OLR Revision No. 9 of 1995. Without considering the matter in its proper perspective, the Commissioner Land Reforms also dismissed the revision on 23.3.1996 vide Annexure-5. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that none of the authorities considered the principle of natural justice thereby violated the said principle. He further submitted that the Petitioners were not heard in the matter on merit and the authorities did not decide whether the land had been distributed before 1960 and no enquiry was made to that effect by the authority. Therefore, the impugned orders should be dismissed in limine. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 to 5 fairly submitted that the OLR authorities did not consider the case of the Petitioners. The learned Counsel appearing for opposite parties 6 to 12 submitted that they are the beneficiaries after the land was treated as ceiling surplus land. The land was distributed to them and they are not aware about the proceedings initiated by the OLR Authorities. 4. This Court perused the LCR. It reveals that no notice was issued to the present Petitioners though their names were recorded in the record of rights in the year 1955-56. As the Revenue Officer violated the principle of natural justice, the Petitioners were not able to put forth their case. They will suffer irreparably if the orders will be allowed to stand and grave injustice will be caused to them if they will not get a chance to contest the matter. The findings of the authorities were therefore perverse. This Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India quashes the order vide Annexures 3,4 and 5 and remands the matter to the Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Lanjigarh, opposite party No. 5, with a direction to hear the matter afresh after issuing notice to the present Petitioners.