Maguni Dei vs The State of Orissa and Others

Narasimham, C.J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order of Shri B. Mohapatra, exercising the powers of Collector under Sections 9 and 11 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act rejecting the Petitioner''s application u/s 9(1)(d) of that Act, under the following circumstances.

The Petitioner claimed to be the landlord of about 1.72 acres of land which were formerly let out on Bhag to opposite party No. 3. She further stated that after the coming into force of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act she, on the 15th May 1955, exercised her option of selecting seven acres of land for her personal cultivation, as permitted by Section 4(1) of that Act and included in the plots so selected the land given on bhag to opposite party No. 3, and gave registered notice not only to that opposite party but also to the Collector of Puri. She further alleged that on the 17th June 1955, while she was engaged in agricultural operations, the opposite party disturbed her possession and hence she applied to the Collector u/s 9(1)(d) of that Act for a summary decision of the dispute between her and her bhagachassi.

The learned Collector has dismissed the Petitioner''s application mainly on the ground that in the application under Sections 9 and 11 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, she did not clearly mention the date on which intimation of her selection of seven acres u/s 4(1) of the Act was given to the Collector and the Bhagachassi. He therefore thought that the application did not comply with the particulars required by Rules 13(1) and 26 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Rules, 1955.

The lower Court has obviously acted in undue haste. It was clearly stated in the application that doe intimation of the selection u/s 4(1) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act had been given to the Collector (Sub-divisional Magistrate) Khurda, and also to the bhagachassi. If the exact date of selection was not specified in the application the Revenue court might have called upon the Petitioner to furnish the same and given an adjournment for that purpose. The application should not have been thrown out for such a minor omission in furnishing the particulars, especially when the omission could be easily rectified.

We would, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector dated the 19th February 1956 and direct him to re-hear the application after giving sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to furnish the particulars required by law. We make no order for costs.

Mohapatra, J.

I agree.

Petition allowed.