Land Reforms Commissioner vs Revenue Officer and Others

K.S. Raghupathi, Member

In this case the Collector, Kalahandi has moved the Board of Revenue u/s 59(2) to revise the order of the Revenue Officer, Nawapara passed

in his Case 903 of 1975 determining the ceiling and surplus lands of Hirasingh Dharua and Bohirin Dharua.

A draft statement was Prepared by the Amin showing Hirasingh Dharua, son of Dokara Dharua as a person holding along with Bohirin Dharua,

son of Piladekhan Dharua 5631 acres of land in village Salihakala. On 27 September 1975 the draft statement was asked to be published inviting

objections. Do 5 December 1971 the Revenue Officer conducted an enquiry in the village. A Tadansingh Majhi son of Hirasingh Majhi stated that

he and other successors of Hirasingh and Bohirin had landed property in Salihakala, Salikhurdu and Jhalbaha1. While the record does not indicate

when Hirasingh and Bohirin died it is stated that Tadansingh produced two partition deeds executed in the year 1972 one between the widow of

Hirasingh Dharua and the son of Bohirin Dharua and the other between their children. It was claimed that the lands which had been jointly

recorded in the name of Hirasingh and Bohirin had been amicably divided and were being separately cultivated for over ten years. An affidavit

which was asked to be filed showed that 87.48 acres of land which has been jointly held in three different villages had been divided.

In a further enquiry the Revenue Officer satisfied himself that Hirasingh was dead and so was Bohirin and his wife but persisted in determining

the ceiling area of the dead ""person"" on the ground that the ""deeds at partition"" could not be recognised as they were executed between September

1970 and 2 October 1973. He allowed 0.83 acres in terms of Clause (a) of Section 39 and 18 standard acres as the ceiling area. 32.28 acres

were declared surplus.

I have perused the records and heard the parties. The proceedings have been conducted in a most haphazard manner and are full of

irregularities.

One can understand a Revenue Officer depending on the Record of Rights in initiating proceedings suo motu u/s 42 of the Act. But once he has

obtained information from the Record of Rights or through such agency as he may consider proper, it is required of him that he would apply his

mind and record his finding in accordance with the provisions of Section 43. This has not been done. The learned Revenue Officer ordered the

draft statement prepared by the amin to be published without applying his mind to it. The particulars of lands to be retained within the ceiling limit

and those in excess of the ceiling were not shown and the draft statement was thus non-existent in law. On this ground alone the proceedings have

to be quashed.

The operative section which prohibits a person holding any land in excess of the ceiling area is Section 37-B which reads -

On and from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1973 (President Act, 17 of 1973) no person shall either as

landholder or raiyat or as both be entitled to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area.

I, Explanation - For the purposes of this section all lands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all the members of a

family shall be deemed to be held by the family.

A ""person"" has been defined in Section 37. ""Ceiling area"" is defined in Section 37 A. The principles for determining the ceiling area are

contained in Section 39. Clause (b) of Section 39 reads -

the transfer or any land by sale, gift or otherwise or the partition thereof by a person during the period beginning with the 26th day of September,

1970 and ending with commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 shall, if such person was holding land on the said day

in excess of the ceiling area, be deemed to be void, anything contained in any law or agreement or in any decree or order of any Court

notwithstanding.

The Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 came into force on the 2nd of October 1973. The object of Clause (b) of Section 39 is to

prevent any person who was holding land on the 26th day of September 1970 in excess of the ceiling area from circumventing the ceiling

provisions by transferring land or by partitioning his holding. If a person had been alive and holding land on the 25th day of September 1970, in

excess of the ceiling area, transfer of any land or the partition of any land by such person subsequent to that date shall be void.

It is not clear from the records when exactly Hirasingh and Bohirin died. The deeds of partition which were registered in 1972 are not on the

records either it would appear that the petition was not by Harasingh or Bohirin but by their successors after they bad inherited titles to the land, if

any of the successors was a ""person"" who was holding land immediately before the 26th day of September 1970 in excess of his ceiling area,

transfer or partition of any land by such person would be void. There is nothing on the records to show whether any of the ""successors"" was

holding land in excess of his ceiling area before the 26th day of September 1970.

It is open to the learned Revenue Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 43 against any of the persons who inherited the lands of the deceased

Hirasingh and Bohirin if such person or persons attract the provisions of Section 37-B or Section 52 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. With these

observations the proceedings in Case No. 903 of 1975 before the Revenue Officer, Nawapara are quashed.

Ordered accordingly.