Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) He was collecting a petition fee of Re. 0-4-0 on each petition in contravention of Section 84, Orissa Tenancy Act.
(c) He contravened the provisions of Section 3, Orissa Communal Forest and Private Land (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948, by leasing out Gochar lands in mouza Kusthira, Baunas Kauta and Madhupurpat and Leasing out 0-43 acres of private lands in Baunsa-kanta to one Madhu Baral and also leasing out communal lands in village Andhei Guda.
(d) A large number of mutation petition were pending for years together without any action.

16. The next item charge (b) is that the proprietor was collecting a petition-fee of annas four on each petition in contravention of Section 24 (84?) Orissa Tenancy Act. This is covered by charge No. 6 in the notice issued by the Collector to the petitioner which states as follows:

"Whenever a tenant makes an application to the Madhupur Estate, he is made to pay Re. 0-4-0 with the application petition fee, which as not warranted by any law in force. The petition-register for 1950-51 up to 2-12-1951, shows 1016 of such cases of illegal exactions."

It does not appear from the Collector's report that this explanation was found to be false. On the other hand it appears to have been more or less accepted by him. If that be so, it is difficult to see how the collection of petition-

fees can be charged to be by way of an illegal exaction in breach of Sections 84 and 85, Orissa Tenancy Act.

21. From the above detailed consideration, it is clear that if one has to go merely by the material disclosed by the Collector's report and keeping aside for the moment the opinion that he has expressed on such material, there seems to be nothing with reference to which a reasonable conclusion of "persistent failure to discharge the duties imposed on the proprietor by law" could have been arrived at by the Government. Only three out of the five charges in para. 11 of Shri V. Ramanathan's affidavit relate to alleged breach of specific statutory functions. The other two are allegations of bad management, not having anything to do with statutory or other legal duties. The three alleged breaches of statutory duty do not appaar to be capable of being substantiated or in any view of being held to be persistent with reference to the material available, and if there were any other material collected at the enquiry by the Collector and made available to the Government, that has not been placed before us. Shri V. Ramanathan in his affidavit merely states that apart from the Collector's report there were other materials before the Government as well as the Court's recommendation.

The petitioner filed a written statement denying the charges and a thorough enquiry was made by the Collector. Thereafter, on 24-2-1951, the Collector, Sri M.N. Guha, sent an exhaustive report dealing with ?il the charges. He held that none of the charges had been proved and that no agrarian trouble was apprehended. He reported that in his considered opinion there was no ground for taking over the management of the Estate by the Court of Wards. Later however- the Collector wrote a D.O. letter to the petitioner (No. 1734 (Wards) dated 31st March 1951), in which he pointed out that the petitioner should not collect a fee of four annas from any tenant who filed petitions before him as it contravened Section 84 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. He also advised the petitioner to devote his personal attention to office work and to see that mutation cases that were pending in his office were disposed of expeditiously and to appoint some suitable person as manager before he (the Collector) inspected the Estate again. But no such inspection appears to have been made by either Mr. Guha or by his successor Sri P.C. Mohanty. The petitioner then avers that on receipt of the Collector's report the Minister in charge of Revenue ordered in April, 1951, that no further steps were to be taken against the petitioner.