Panda Vs. Pramananda Beura  INSC 84 (4 February 1994)
Singh (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Yogeshwar Dayal (J)
1994 SCC Supl. (2) 576
Special leave granted.
This appeal is a sequel to a reference made by the Land Reforms Commissioner to
the Board of Revenue, Orissa under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms
Act, 1960 (the Act). The said reference was made on the basis of an application
submitted by the appellant to the Land Reforms Commissioner wherein the
appellant claimed that the house- site settled in his favour by the Revenue
Officer was illegally set aside by the appellate authority on the basis of a
compromise which according to the appellant is illegal.
question for the consideration of the Board of Revenue was whether the
compromise entered into between the appellant (tenant) and the respondent
(landlord) was in violation of the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act. The
Board of Revenue, on the basis of the material before it, came to the
conclusion that the compromise was not valid and in fact intended to defeat the
provisions of the Act which were beneficial and for the protection of the raiyats.
The Board allowed the reference and held that the appellant- tenant was
entitled to be a deemed raiyat under the Act.
High Court, however, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction reversed the finding
of the Board. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court.
have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have been taken through the
order of the Board and also the judgment of the High Court. We are of the view
that tile High Court fell into patent error in reversing the well- reasoned
order of the Board. The Board, after examining the record and also on
appreciation of the oral and other evidence, came to the conclusion that the
compromise was wholly unjust and was with a view to defeat the provisions of
the Act. There was no basis whatsoever before the High Court to interfere with
the finding reached by the Board.
(2) and (3) of Section 22-A of the Act specifically provide that a raiyat or a
tenant desiring to surrender or abandon his holding may furnish information in
writing in that respect to the Revenue Officer. The Revenue Officer after
making an inquiry in the prescribed manner may approve or disapprove the
proposed surrender or abandonment.
mode and nature of inquiry to be made by the Revenue Officer is + Arising out
of SLP (C) No. 15042 of 1993 577 prescribed under the rules framed under the
Act. No inquiry of any kind was held in this case. There was no prior approval
for surrendering the holding by the appellant. The High Court reversed the
findings of the Board without any justification and in utter violation of the
mandatory provisions of the Act.
therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court
and restore that of the Board.