Orissa High Court
V. Sarojini @ G. Sarojini @ Gunam ... vs Member on 31 January, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18344 of 2010
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
V. Sarojini @ G. Sarojini @ Gunam Sarojini
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate.
Along with Mr. B.K. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 15.01.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 31.01.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying
for quashing the final order dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-2)
passed in OLR Revision No.59 of 2003 by the Opposite Party
No.1(Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ is that, a ceiling
case vide OLR Case No.16 of 1974 was initiated by the
Opposite Party No.4 (Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar,
Rayagada) against the petitioner alleging possession of ceiling
surplus land i.e. more than 10 standard acres having total
area of Ac.32.91 cents under Khata No.41 in village Barijholla
by her (petitioner) in the District of Rayagada recorded in her
name.
In that OLR Case No.16 of 1974, the petitioner submitted
objection denying possession of any ceiling surplus land
stating that, the land possessed by her under Khata No.41 in
Mouza-Barijholla are all unirrigated class-IV dry land and the
Kisam/status of the properties under Khata No.41 has been
indicated by the settlement authorities as dry land, but
erroneously the Opposite Party No.4 has stated to the said
properties as Class-II land instead of Class-IV land. There is
no irrigation facility to the said land from the Rayagada Gedda
Irrigation Project. For which, at any cost, the land under
Khata No.41 in village Barijholla in the name of the petitioner
cannot be treated as Class-II land, but in fact, the said land
under Khata No.41 are all Class-IV land. The petitioner has
further stated in her objection that, the properties under
Khata No.41 being dry land, crops like Arhar Dal (Kandula)
was cultivating in some of the plots of that Khata No.41 till
the establishment of Jeypore Sugar Company and some of the
plots thereof were lying fallow. After establishment of Jeypore
Sugar Company, the petitioner raised sugarcane in some of
the plots in Khata No.41, which is yielding 3 crops in a period
of 4 years and as such, there is no one crop in one year in any
portion of the properties covered under Khata No.41. For
which, all the properties covered under Khata No.41 are class-
IV land, but not Class-I, Class-II or Class-III. Any land under
Khata No.41 cannot be treated as irrigated as per Section
2(13) of the OLR Act, 1960 as there is no assured source of
irrigation facility to the said land from any irrigation project of
Central Government or State Government or any private
source of lift irrigation from any perennial water source to the
same. In spite of that, the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar,
Rayagada passed final order on dated 20.02.1976 in that OLR
Case No.16 of 1974 holding that, all the properties covered
under Khata No.41 in Mouza-Barijholla in the name of the
petitioner as class-II land and the petitioner is in possession
of ceiling surplus land and the amount of ceiling surplus land
is Ac.16.41 decimals and directed to take possession of the
said ceiling surplus land i.e. Ac.16.41 decimals from the
petitioner.
3. On being dissatisfied with the said Order dated
20.02.1976 passed by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar,
Rayagada (Opposite Party No.4) in OLR Case No.16 of 1974,
the petitioner preferred an appeal vide OLR Appeal No.16 of
1976 under Section 58 of the OLR Act before the A.D.M.
Rayagada (Opp. Party No.2), but that OLR Appeal of the
petitioner was dismissed on dated 12.07.1976.
Then, she (petitioner) filed revision under Section 59 of
the OLR Act vide O.L.R. Revision No.74 of 1976 against the
dismissal order passed in OLR Appeal No.16 of 1976, but the
said O.L.R. Revision was also dismissed.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition vide O.J.C.
No.2164 of 1981 challenging the said dismissal order of the
OLR Revision No.74 of 1976 before this Hon'ble Courts.
Like the petitioner, the other affected persons (those were
the members of the joint family of the petitioner previously)
filed separate writ petitions vide OJC No.2163 of 1981 and
OJC No.2165 of 1981 and all the above three writ petitions
including O.J.C. No.2164 of 1981 were disposed of by this
Hon'ble Courts in setting aside the Order of the Revisional
Authority (those were challenged separately in the said writ
petitions) vide separate Orders in each writ petitions passed
on dated 28.08.1991 directing A.D.M., Rayagada to investigate
afresh i.e. whether the land involved in the respective ceiling
proceedings are irrigated or not, giving liberty to the respective
parties in the respective ceiling cases to adduce further
evidence, as they choose giving same observations in all the
three writ petitions including in the writ petition of the
petitioner vide OJC No.2164 of 1981.
As per the directions of this Hon'ble Courts in OJC
No.2164 of 1981, A.D.M., Rayagada (O.P. No.2) initiated OLR
Revision No.8 of 1992 for enquiring into the matter relating to
the properties involved in OLR Ceiling Case No.16 of 1974
afresh.
5. During fresh enquiry, A.D.M, Rayagada took fresh
evidence and he (A.D.M, Rayagada in this writ petition)
himself made field enquiry on dated 08.01.1998 with
Tahasildar, Rayagada and his staffs and obtained report from
the Assistant Engineer, OLIC Rayagada.
On the basis of fresh evidence along with his personal
field enquiry report and the report of the Assistant Engineer,
OLIC Rayagada, the Opp. Party No.2 (A.D.M, Rayagada)
passed final Order (Annexure-1) in OLR Revision No.8 of 1992
giving observations that,
"the land under Khata No.41 in Mouza(Village)
Barijholla are not irrigated land and there is no
irrigation facility near the said land. The said land are
dry land without any assured source of irrigation to the
same as defined under Section 2(13) of the OLR Act,
1960. In some of the plots under Khata No.41, only the
crops like Arhar (Kandula) are growing and other plots
are lying fallow. All the properties covered under Khata
No.41 in village Barijholla are Class-IV land, but not
class-II land. For which, there is no land in access of
ceiling limit with the petitioner V. Sarojini @ G. Sarojini @
Gunam Sarojini. In the said final order (Annexure-1), the
Opposite Party No.2 directed Tahasildar, Rayagada
(Opposite Party No.4) to drop the ceiling case No.16 of
1974 against the petitioner."
Thereafter, the Collector, Rayagada moved the Opposite
Party No.1 (Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack, Odisha)
challenging the above final order vide Annexure-1 passed by
the Opposite Party No.2 in OLR Revision No.8 of 1992 in
favour of the petitioner and accordingly, OLR Revision No.59
of 2003 was initiated before Member, Board of Revenue
(Opposite Party No.1) as OLR Revision No.59 of 2003.
As per final Order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the
Opposite Party No.1 in OLR Revision No.59 of 2003 (vide
Annexure-2), Annexure-1 passed by the Opposite Party No.2
was set aside assigning the reasons that,
"when sugarcane was growing in the case lands as per
the objection of the petitioner and sugarcane crop can never
be grown without irrigation facilities and when sugarcane
crops remain in the ground for a period of 15 months, for
which, there is nothing exceptional about having 3
sugarcane crops in four years and when it is found from the
field enquiry report conducted in connection with OLR Appeal
No.16 of 1976 that, the case land was getting irrigation and
when the certificate proceeding vide Certificate Case No.8 of
1963 was initiated against the land holders for realization of
water charge duties and sale-proclamation was issued, then,
it is held that, the case land are irrigated land, but
subsequent backtracking on this fact is of no help."
6. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid final Order dated
30.08.2010 (Annexure-2) passed in OLR Revision Case No.59
of 2003 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa,
Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1), the petitioner of this writ
petition challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying
for quashing the said Order dated 30.08.2010 passed in OLR
Revision Case No.59 of 2003 (Annexure-2) by the Opposite
Party No.1 on the ground that, the findings and observations
made by the Opposite Party No.1 in the Annexure-2 for setting
aside the final Order dated 24.01.1998 passed by the
Opposite Party No.2 in Annexure-I are baseless and without
materials on record only on surmises and conjunctures. For
which, the same is to be quashed and same observations like
Annexure-1 has already been quashed in other writ petitions
filed by the other petitioners vide O.J.C. No. 1050 of 1993 and
WP(C) No.15237 of 2013 in respect of properties of the same
vicinity.
7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite
Parties.
8. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the Kisam of
the properties involved in the writ petition are dry land.
As per Lexicon of Revenue Terms "Kisam" means
"Classification of land on the basis of nature, situation,
productivity, irrigation, silt deposit, uses etc."
9. Classification of land forms an important item of work,
during survey settlement operation, since it enables the
Government as well as the land holders to know the nature
and quality of land, they hold as well as the rent payable for
the land by the land holder.
10. The law relating to the classification of land has been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Collector, Koraput Vs. Badar Pujari reported in
43 (1977) CLT 695 (B.R)--The classes of Land for the purpose of
the OLR Act has been defined in Section 2 (5-a). Different criteria
are adopted by settlement authorities for classification of land in
the Record of Rights. Therefore, the two classifications need not
necessarily be the same. If paddy was not grown or cannot be
grown on unirrigated land it would come within class IV and not
class III.
II. In a case between Smt. G. Sarada Devi vrs. Member, Board of
Revenue reported in 76 (1993) CLT 821 (DB). As per Section
2(13) of OLR Act, 1960 "irrigated by private tank or private well is
not irrigated land as per the definition".
III. In a case between Bhikari Sahu & Others Vs. State of Orissa &
Others reported in ILR 1975 Cuttack 843, As per Section 2(13) of
OLR Act, 1960--Irrigated land--Perennial water source
meaning--The said water source does not come to an end; not
drying up in summer. Thus, land irrigated by a private tank or
private well, which is not a perennial water source, cannot be
construed as "irrigated land".
Irrigation facility from any private source by means of a
tube well cannot be held to be assured source of irrigation.
11. As per dictionary meaning "dry" means without water.
"Dry Land" means unproductive land due to deficient in rain
fall.
12. As per Section 2(13) of OLR Act, 1960,
"Irrigated land means, land, which is assured of
irrigation from an irrigation project constructed or maintained or
improved or controlled by the Central Government or the State
Government or by a body corporated established under any
law for the time being in force and includes land which is
assured of irrigation from any private source by means of lift
irrigation from any perennial water source operated by diesel or
electric power, but does not include continually water-lodged
lands or sand cast lands."
13. It appears from the record that, the Assistant Engineer
OLIC, Rayagada as well as Tahasildar, Rayagada had
submitted report in the ceiling proceeding those have been
perused and reflected by the A.D.M. Rayagada in the final
order (Annexure-1) passed in OLR Revision No.8 of 1992.
As per the report of the Assistant Engineer OLIC,
Rayagada, the land in village Barijholla and Khaliguda are not
irrigated land, but, two plots in village Jayaramguda are
getting irrigation.
The report of the Tahasildar, Rayagada is going to show
that, the land were irrigated earlier and the same will be
irrigated in future under the ayacut of siltiguda MIP.
The personal field visit report dated 08.01.1998 of ADM,
Rayagada with Tahasildar, Rayagada is going to show that,
plot No.32/1 and 32/3 measuring an area of Ac.0.70 decimals
and Ac.0.75 decimals are getting water facilities from the lift
irrigation corporation, where crop like Arhar (Kandula) has
been grown and most of the plots have been led as fallows. He
(ADM, Rayagada) did not find any trace of any water facility in
the case lands in village Barijholla and the properties in
village Khaliguda are also lying fallow like the properties in
village Barijholla. He did not find any trace for irrigation there.
As such, during field visit of the ADM, Rayagada with
Tahasildar and his staffs, he did not find any irrigation facility
from any assured irrigation sources to the case land and gave
his findings in Annexure-1 that,
"when the properties of village Barijholla involved in the
ceiling proceedings are dry land and the question of raising
any paddy on the same does not arise, but only, the crops
like Arhar (Kandula) are rasing on the same at times, then,
the said lands are held as the class-IV land and the said
land being class-IV land cannot come within the purview of
ceiling surplus land of the petitioner."
14. When the above findings and observations of ADM
Rayagada(Opposite Party No.2) vide Annexure-1 are on the
basis of (i) the report of the Assistant Engineer OLIC Rayagada
and Tahasildar, Rayagada (ii) his own personal field visit
report with Tahasildar, Rayagada and staffs and (iii) through
fresh evidence that, "there is no irrigation facility to the case
land situated in village Barijholla and the paddy crops are not
capable to be grown in the said land, but only crops like Arhar
(Kandula) are being grown at times in some of the properties
thereof, as the said crops can only be grown in dry land and as
such, all the land involved in the ceiling case are dry land, but
when, the Opposite Party No.1 in its Judgment dated
30.08.2010 (Annexure-2) in OLR Revision No.59 of 2003 set
aside the same assigning the reasons that, sugarcane was
grown on some of the case land and sugarcane crop can never
be grown without irrigation facilities and sugarcane crops
remain on the ground for a period of 15 months, for which, 3
sugarcane crops can be raised within 4 years and the report of
the SDO, Rayagada is going to show that, the case land was
getting irrigation previously and certificate proceeding was
initiated for realization of the water charges" then, at this
juncture, the above reasons assigned by the Opposite Party
No.1 in Annexure-2 for setting aside Annexure-1 cannot be
sustainable/acceptable under law.
Because, the above findings in Annexure-2 by the
Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the case land were getting irrigation
facilities previously without giving any definite/specific finding
about the availability of present irrigation facilities through
any perennial water source to the same is held to be baseless.
So, the aforesaid findings and observations made by the
Opposite Party No.1 in Annexure-2 for setting aside Annexure-
1 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 on the basis of the
surmises/conjunctures/inferences without any basis for the
reasons assigned above are held to be as baseless.
That apart, the other two writ petitions vide OJC
Nos.1050 of 1993 and WP(C) No.15237 of 2013 filed by others
(those were the family members of the petitioner previously)
challenging the similar nature of findings and observations
given by the Opposite Party No.1 in other revisions in respect
of the land in the vicinity of the case law of this writ petition in
the other ceiling cases initiated against them alleging
irrigation facility from the same irrigation project have already
been set aside by this Hon'ble Courts and the final
observations of the Additional District Magistrate (Opposite
Party No.2) holding the land involved in the said writ petitions
treating the same as class-IV land have already been restored.
15. When, as per the findings and observations made above,
the impugned order (Annexure-2) passed by the Member,
Board of Revenue (Opp. Party No.1) in OLR Revision No.59 of
2003 has been held as baseless, then, at this juncture, the
said order vide Annexure-2 passed by the Opposite Party No.1
cannot be sustainable under law.
16. Therefore, the final Order dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-2)
passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack
(Opp. Party No.1) is quashed and the final Order dated
24.01.1998 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned ADM,
Rayagada is restored.
As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed, but without cost.
Designation: Senior Stenographer
JUDGE
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
Date: 03-Feb-2025 15:49:56
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 31 .01. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
