Orissa High Court
Jibardhan Senapati And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 6 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(II)OLR1
Author: D.P. Mohapatra
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra
JUDGMENT G.B. Pattnaik, J.
1. The orders passed by the revenue authorities in a ceiling surplus proceeding are under challenge in this writ application.
2. The short facts of the case are that one Krushna Senapati, the common ancestor, had three sons, Hutasan, Padmalochan and Soma- nath. Petitioners 2 and 3 represent Hutasan's branch ; petitioners 1 and 7 represent Padmalochan's branch and rest of the petitioners represent Somanath's branch. A ceiling surplus proceeding was initiated suo motu by the Revenue Officer and a Draft Statement was prepared showing Purnachandra (petitioner No. 2) and others as the ceiling surplus holders and notice was served on different persons of different branches. Petitioner No. 1 representing Padmalochan's" branch, petitioner No. 2 representing Hutasan's branch and petitioner No. 4 representing Somanath's branch filed objections indicating therein that there has been a partition in the family long back and, therefore, they cannot be construed to be constituting a 'family' Under Section 37 (b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.
The Revenue Officer conducted a Iocal enquiry and then on 15-6-1980 passed the final order with the conclusion that the three brothers Hutasan, Padmalochan and Somanath had separated themselves, forty years back and their legal heirs are separated from each other having their independent kitchens and having separate possession in respect of the different parcels of lands, On the aforesaid finding, the Revenue Officer further came to hold that each branch constituted a family by themselves and, therefore, would be entitled to three celling areas and taking the total land into consideration dropped the ceiling case as no area was found to be in surplus. This order became final as it was not appealed against by anybody.
Long six years thereafter, the Additional District Magistrate passed an administrative order possibly on examining the records of the ceiling case directing that the Revenue Officer committed an error in not consulting the Local . Committee and, therefore, the matter should be reopened. This order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 16-3- 1986 has been annexed as Annexure-4. After the matter was remanded, the Revenue Officer held fresh enquiry and parties were heard. The Revenue Officer finally disposed of the proceeding by order dated 28-11 1986, annexed as Annexure-5, coming to the conclusion that the properties could be considered to be properties of a body of individuals and, therefore, only one ceiling could be given.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal which was registered as O. L. R. Appeal No. 46 of 1987. The appellate authority also came to the conclusion that the son of Padmalochan has been remaining separately and the branch was separate from others, but he being of the opinion that no Local Committee having been consulted, the order of the Revenue Officer was bad in law. He, there- fore, remanded the matter again to the Revenue Officer. This order of the appellate authority is annexed as Annexure-7.
The State challenged this order of remand by preferring a revision which was registered as O. L. R. Revision No. 18 of 1987. The revisional authority disposed of the said revision by order dated 2-12- 1987 setting aside the order of remand passed by the Additional District Magistrate and confirming the order of the Revenue Officer. It is this order that has been annexed as Annexure-8. The petitioners, therefore, have moved this Court.
3. Mr. Padhi appearing for the petitioners raises the sole contention that the members of the three branches of the common ancestor Krushna cannot be held to be a 'body of individuals' within the meaning of Section 37 (a) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and, therefore, the determination of ceiling by treating them as a body of individuals is without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he places reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Panda v. State of Orissa through Secretary to Government of Orissa, Revenue Department and others, 1936 (II) OLR 31. In the aforesaid case after considering the provisions of Sections 37 and 39 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, this Court has held :
"In the context of the various provisions of the Act, the members of a family as understood in common parlance, as distinguished from the artificial meaning which has been given to the expression 'family' in Section 37(b), cannot be considered as an association or a body of individuals. The extended meaning given by the revenue authorities would embrace even the residents of a whole village as a body of individuals constituting them a "person' for the purpose of Chapter IV of the Act. Such a consequence cannot have been intended...."
In view of the aforesaid Bench decision of this Court interpreting the true meaning of the expression "body of individuals" contained in Section 37(a) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the revenue authorities have committed gross error of law by treating the different members of three different branches of the original ancestor Krushna to be a body of individuals and thereafter proceeding to determine the ceiling treating them as a 'person' Under Section 37(a) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the Revenue Officer while passing the order on 15-6-1980 treating the defferent members as different families and granting three ceiling units in their favour under Annexure-3 had taken the correct view of the law.
4. In the aforesaid premises, the order of the Revenue Officer dated 28-11-1986, annexed as Annexure-5, as well as all subsequent orders including the order in Armexure-8 are hereby quashed and the order of the Revenue Officer under Annexure-3 is confirmed. This writ application is accordingly allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
D.P. Mohapatra, J.
I agree.