STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus ARAKHITA BISOI

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 14-04-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

556 
A 
STATE OF ORIS$A AND ORS. 
v. 
ARAKHITA BISOI 
April 14, 1977 
(M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA ANO P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.) 
B 
Oriss.1 Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by Act 13 of 196S and Act 
29 of 1916-Revisional powers ul s 59-Whether an order passed by lhe ap-
pellate authority u/s 44 of the Act whicli ha.s become final uls 44(2) is 
capable of rel'isiOn by the Collector u/s 59 before the amendment Act 29 of 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1916--Construction of S. 59. 
· 
Under Section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the Revenue Officer 
determines the ceiling surplus and on _the termination of the proceedings there~ 
under, the Revenue Officer u/s 44(1) confirms the draft statement; u/s 44(2) 
an appeal lies to the prescnbed authority against the order under sub-section 
(1) and_ subject to results of such appeal, if any, order. of the Revenue 
Officer shall be final. 
Section 58 provides a right of appeal to any person 
aggrieved by an order passed under any of the Sections enumerate.d in &':b~ 
section (I). Sub-section ( 1) of S. 59 provides that the Collector may roVJSe 
any order passed in appeal by any officer below the rank of a Collector u~er 
tfiis Act. 
Section 59(1) also empowers the Board of ·Revenue 
to 
rev1Se 
any order passed by the Collector. 
Sub-section (2) enables the Collector or 
the Board of Revenue suo nwtu or on the application of the party concerned 
call for and enmine the record in respect of any proceedings_ under the 
Act and modify, annual reverse or remit for reconsideration. 
· 
. 
· 
In the proceedings u/s 38 of the Act_ the plea of the resporideD.t landlord 
that there was a partition between him and his sons was rejected by the 
Revenue Officer who determined the surplus extent as 12.08 standard acres. 
The appeal preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer having failed. the res~ 
pondent filed a revision before the Additional 
District 
Magistrate. 
1he 
Addi:ional Magistrate held ·that the appellate orders u/s 44 are final and 
·that no revision lay to him.. The writ petition filed against this order filed 
by the respondent was aUowed by the 0-issa High Court by its order 
dated lS-7-1976 holding that the Additional Magistrate had powers to revise 
an order of the appellate authority passed u/s 44 by virtue of the powers 
conferred on bin1 under .s. 59 of the Act. 
. 
'Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court. 
HEID : (i) The language of S. 59(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act is 
\\'ide enough to enable the Collector to revise any order including an appellate 
order under S. 44 of the Act. [561 BJ · 
(ii) In app~ying. the rule of ha!monious -constructio~ with a vi~w .to _giye · 
effect to the . mtention : of the legislature the court will not be 111c;ttlied tn 
putting a· construction which would restr'ct the revisionary jurisdiction of the 
Collector and the Board of Revenue. 
[560E] 
• • 
In the instant case, the Act is of expropratory _nature and the determination 
of the excess lands is done by the Revenue Officer. 
The. legis1ature intended 
that anr. error or irregularity should be rectified by higher authorities Uke the 
Collector and the Board of Revenue. 
[560E] 
· 
1. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Stafe of U.P. & Ors. 
[1961] 3 S.C.R. !SS held not applicable. 
The Ben~al Tmmunity Cotnpany Ltd .. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [t9SS] 
. 2 S.C.R .• 603 referred to. 
(iii) It cannot be said that there is any conflict between S.- 44(1 l and 
S. 58 ina.;:much oo S. 44( 1) provides that the ordE>r of the Revenue Officer 
shall be fmal, subject to the result of appeal u/s 44(2), while no such finJ.lity 
• 
·'.; 
ORISSA v. BISOI (Kailasam, !.) 
557 
is mellticm.ed in the case of an appeal u/s 58. 
'fhe provision as to finality 
u/s 44(2) is provided for so that in the absence of the 
a~grieved party 
proceeding further in the matter, the consequences of the vestmg of surplus 
lands u/s 45, the preparation of the Compensation A-;sessment Roll, the 
settlement of surplus lands etc. can be proceeded with. [559 D-F] 
A 
(iv) The amendment to S. 44(3) by the Amendment Act of 1975 making· 
it clear that a right to revision is provided for orders passed u/s 44(2) does 
not make any difference. 
The amendment could not mean that S. 44(2) as 
B 
it originally stood did not provide for power of revision to the Collector 
u/s 59, 
[560 A-Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 903 of 1976. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 15-7-1976 of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.