Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)S.B. Gurbaksh Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 January, 1976
Even in a case arising under the Bengar Finance (Sales Tax) Act the Supreme Court held in AIR 1976 SC 1115 (S. B .Gurubaksh Singh v. Union of India) to the same effect that the exercise of a suo motu revisional jurisdiction is to be made within a reasorable time and what is reasonable time is dependent upon facts of each case. In view of such overwhelming authorities, we cannot but repel the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that because of the wording of Section 12 the power was available to be exercised by the Commissioner at any time. But the question is as to what is reasonable time within which the power should be exercised. Though there is no intrinsic evidence in the Act itself as to what would be the reasonable time for exercise of suo motu power of revision, yet without going into that question it can be held on the authorities of the decisions(supra)that such reasonableness is dependent upon facts and circumstances of each case, including analysis of relevant provisions of the statute concerned. Section 38-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act is a pari matetia statute as regards the vesting of the estates in the State and the settlement thereof, with the intermediaries or recognising the continuance of the tenants under the State. The provision empowers the respective authorities to review any order in a suo motu proceeding within one year from the date of the decision or the order. Even though we do not propose to hold a general view that the power of suo smotu revision is to be exercised by the Commissioner under the Act within a year of the date of the order, yet so far as the present case is concerned, we feel that the order of the Tahasildar on 18-1-1978 was not available to be varied after lapse of nearly five year and as a matter of fact no move for a reference should have been made by the Collector after expiry of such period. Here is a case where the petitioner, a tribal was in possession of the land since 1945 and even if it is his admission that since 1965 his sons are in possession of the land it does not alter the position that it is either the petitioner or his sons who are in possession. Ordinarily a person who has continued in possession for such length of time is not to 'be disturbed even if he is not a tribal and that more weight age is to be as attached when the person concerned is one such. We would thus hold that the initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner was erroneous in law and hence cannot be sustained.
Section 13 in The Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972
Section 38A in The Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Laxminarayan Sahu vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 28 November, 1990
A full Bench of this Court observed in 71 (191) CLT 322 (Laxminarayan Sohu v. State of Orissa) following AIR 1983 SC 12 J9 (supra) that there-can be no manner of doubt to hold that the power Under Section 59(2) of the Orissi Hand Reforms Act has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and necessarily stipulates that it should be exercised within a reasonable time and what is reasonable trine so as to be immune from the attack that the power has not been exercised in at reasonable manner would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act vests authority in the Board of Revenue to revise any order passed by any authority under that Act, if moved by the Collector of the district of the land Reforms Commissioner in that behalf.
1