NARAYAN SAHU Vs. RAM CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Narayan Sahu, since deceased and substituted by his legal representatives, filed an application under S.15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act on 4-12-1972 for a declaration that he was tenant of the land measuring 8.14 acres in extent in Mouza Borigaon, district Ganjam, the subject-matter of this litigation, and for a prohibitory order restraining one Radha Sahuani from interfering with his possession. The Revenue Officer passed a prohibitory order. Narayan Sahu also filed an application under S.15(7) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act for appointment of the Revenue Inspector of Kukudakhandi or Nimakhandi as the receiver of the crops standing on the land. He alleged that he had cultivated the land. Radha Sahuani, who was a rich and influential person of the locality, despite the prohibitory order had threatened to forcibly, oust and remove the crops raised by him. The Revenue Officer appointed the Revenue Inspector, Barigaon, as the receiver. On 9-12-1972, Radha Sahuani entered appearance and filed show cause stating that pursuant to the written agreement dt. 18-7-1972 between the parties, Narayan Sahu relinquished his tenancy right and surrendered the land. Narayan Sahu questioned the validity of the agreement. The case was adjourned to 11-12-1972 for further hearing. The Revenue Officer heard the counsel for the parties and by order dt. 12/13-12-1972 held that Narayan Sahu received the costs of cultivation incurred till 18-7-1972 and surrendered the land. He was of the opinion that the agreement was binding on the parties. Hence, he restrained Narayan Sahu from entering upon the land and interfeing with the agricultural operations of Radha Sahuani. Radha Sahuani was allowed to harvest the standing crops. Narayan Sahu assailed the order in appeal. He alleged that the agreement had not been given effect to. It was contingent upon withdrawal of the criminal case launched at the instance of Radha Sahuani. Neither the case had been withdrawn nor had the costs of cultivation incurred by him been paid by Radha Sahuani. The appellate Court was of the view that since the criminal case had not been withdrawn and withdrawal of the case was the consideration, the agreement was not acted upon. It was further of the view that there could not be any relinquishment of tenancy right under an agreement, consideration whereof was withdrawal of the criminal case launched at the instance of the land-lady. It upset the order of the Revenue Officer and allowed O.L.R. Appeal No. 1 of 1973 (Annexure-4). Radha Sahuani carried the matter in revision (O.L.R. Revision No. 155 of 1974). During the pendency of the revision, Radha Sahuani passed away. Ram Chandra Sahu, opposite party No. 1, and one Sushila Sahuani filed separate applications seeking substitution as the legal representatives. The revisional Court accepted the plea of Ram Chandra, the husband of Radha Sahuani, for substitution. Sushila carried the matter to this Court in O.J.C. No. 1915 of 1977 impugning the decision of the revisional Court rejecting her prayer for substitution. The revisional Court further held that Narayan Sahu was the tenant and thus upheld the appellate order. Opposite party No. 1 filed O.J.C. No. 33 of 1978 seeking the quashing of the appellant and the revisional orders. Both the matters were heard analogously. This Court vacated the revisional order and remanded the matter for re-hearing of the revision on merits after deciding the question of substitution. After remand, Ram Chandra and Sushila reached a settlement. Sushila conceded in favour of Ram Chandra, who was substituted in place of Radha Sahuani. On merits, the revisional Court vacated the appellant order and restored that of the Revenue Officer holding that S.22-A had no application to a case of surrender in July, 1972 and there was surrender of tenancy right by Narayan Sahu. It discharged the receiver and directed release of the land in favour of Ram Chandra.

(2.) Mr. Manoj Misra, on behalf of the legal representatives substituted in place of Narayan Sahu, has raised two contentions. Firstly, the Revenue Officer committed error in exercise of Jurisdiction in disposing of the dispute under S.15 while disposing of an interlocutory matter under S.15(7). Secondly, the decisions of the Revenue Officer and the revisional authority are perverse.

(3.) Mr. N. C. Panigrahi, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, has repelled the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and strenuously urged that there was no error apparent on the face of the decision of the revisional Court and the Revenue Officer had nowhere indicated that the dispute under S.15 had been finally disposed of.