- (1.)THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari. The original order of the Revenue Officer, the appellate order of the sub-divisional Officer and the revisional order of the Additional District magistrate-opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 respectively are assailed.
(2.)THOUGH several averments were made in the writ application, a lone contention has been pressed at the hearing. It is claimed that the appellate order of the Sub-divisional Officer (Annexure 2) was open to revision under Section 59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act')and yet the revisional authority (opposite party No. 3)' has rejected the application, saying that the same was not maintainable. As jurisdiction vested in the revisional authority and yet he has declined to exercise the same, his order is vitiated. Thus, the only question for examination is as to whether the impugned appellate order was open to revision before the opposite party No. 3.
(3.)BY order dated 1-11-1974, the Revenue Officer refused to accept the claim of partition, found that the petitioner's family consisted of five members in all and, therefore, petitioner was entitled to a ceiling area of ten standard acres. Accordingly he directed the revised confirmed statement indicating the surplus lands to be published. An appeal was carried against the said order and was dismissed on merit on 26th of April, 1975 (Annexure 2 ). The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Additional District Magistrate who held that the appellate order was not subject to revision in view of the provision regarding finality contained in Section 44 (2) of the Act. He relied upon the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, in the case of Bhagmani Devi v. State of Orissa, (1976) 42 Cut LT 529.