Case: State Of Orissa And Ors Vs. Arakhita Bisoi

that the order of the Revenue Officer shall be final subject to the result of an appeal under section 44(2) while no such finality is mentioned in the case of an appeal under section 58. But this cannot conclude the matter for the powers of revision conferred under section 59 are very wide and empowers the Collector or the Board of Revenue to revise any order passed under this Act and sub-section (2) empowers the Collector and the Board of Revenue to set aside any irregularity in respect of any proceedings under this Act. As the power of revision is not restricted we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that because of the wording of section 44(2) providing. that the order of the Revenue Officer subject to the result of the appeal would .be final, bars the revisionary jurisdiction of the Collector and the Board of Revenue as provided under section 59. We do not find any conflict between the two sections and the provision as to finality under section 44(2) is provided for so that in the absence of the aggrieved party proc eeding further in the matter the consequences of the vesting of surplus lands under section 45, the preparation of the Compensation Assessment Roll, the settlement of surplus lands etc. can be proceeded with.7. The learned counsel drew our attention to the amendment to the Orissa Act by Act 29 of 1976. The Orissa Land Reforms (2nd Amendment) Act, 1975, and submitted that the amendments introduced to section 44, 45 and 59 would make it dear that the legislature understood that the sections as they stood before the amendment did not enable the Collector to exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by the appellate authority under se ction 44(2) of the Act. By the amending Act. section 44, sub-sections (2) and (3) are amended. Sub-section (2) of section 44 as it originally stood provided that subject to the result of such appeal, if any, the orders of the Revenue Officer shall be final and sub-section (3) provided that the draft statement as confirmed or as modified in appeal shall be final and conclusive. By the amendment sub-section (2) is recast and sub-section (3) provides that the draft statement as confirmed or as modified in appeal on revision shall be final and conclusive. The amendment specifically provides for a revision. The amended sub-section (1) of section 59 provides that on an application by party aggrieved by any order passed in an appeal under any provision of this Act filed within the prescribed period, the prescribed authority may revise such order. Though the amendment to section 44(3) makes it clear that a right to revision is provided for orders passed under section 44(2), we do not think that this could mean that section 44(2) as it originally stood did not provide for power of revision to the Collector under section 59. In our opinion, amendment does not make any difference.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that section 44(3) is in the nature of a special provision and should be construed as an exception to section 59 on the principle of harmonious construction. In support of this plea the learned counsel referred to the decision in The J.K. Cotton Spinning &Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. &Ors. (1). In construing the provisions of clause 5(a) and clause 23 of the G.O. concerned, this Court held that the rule of harmonious construction should be applied and in applying the rule the court will have to remember that to harmonise is not to destroy and that in interpreting the statutes the court always presumes that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legisla- tive intention is that every part of the statute should have effect, and a construction which defeats the intention of the rule-making authority must be avoided. This decision does not help the appellant for in our view in applying the rule of harmonious construction with a view to give effect to the intention o(the legislature the court will not be justified in putting a construction which would restrict the revisionary jurisdiction of the Collector and the Board of Revenue. It may be noted that the Act is of exproprietory nature and the determination of the excess lands is done by the Revenue Officer and on appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In such circumstances, it is only 13roper to presume that the legislature intended that any error or irregularity should. be rectified by higher authorities like the Collector and the Board of Revenue. In our view it will be in conformity with the intention of the legislature to hold that section 59 confers a power of revision of an order passed under section 44(2) of the Act. The learned counsel next referred to a decision of this Court in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar and Others.(2) The rule of construction is stated at p. 791 in the following terms by Venkatarama Ayyar , J. speaking for the Court:--"It is a cardinal rule of construction that when there are in a Statute two provi sions which are in conflict with each other such that both of them cannot stand, they should, if possible. be so interpreted that effect can be given to both, and that a con struction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. One application of this rule is that when there is a law generally dealing with a subject and another dealing particularly with one of the topics comprised therein, the general law is to be construed as yielding to the special in respect of the matters comprised therein."8. Construing section 59 as conferring a power of revision against an order passed under section 44(2) is not in any way contrary to the principle laid down in the above decision.9.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]There is no doubt that section 44(1) provides that the order of the Revenue Officer shall be final subject to the result of an appeal under section 44(2) while no such finality is mentioned in the case of an appeal under section 58. But this cannot conclude the matter for the powers of revision conferred under section 59 are very wide and empowers the Collector or the Board of Revenue to revise any order passed under this Act and sub-section (2) empowers the Collector and the Board of Revenue to set aside any irregularity in respect of any proceedings under this Act. As the power of revision is not restricted we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that because of the wording of section 44(2) providing. that the order of the Revenue Officer subject to the result of the appeal would .be final, bars the revisionary jurisdiction of the Collector and the Board of Revenue as provided under section 59. We do not find any conflict between the two sections and the provision as to finality under section 44(2) is provided for so that in the absence of the aggrieved party proc eeding further in the matter the consequences of the vesting of surplus lands under section 45, the preparation of the Compensation Assessment Roll, the settlement of surplus lands etc. can be proceededconstruing the provisions of clause 5(a) and clause 23 of the G.O. concerned, this Court held that the rule of harmonious construction should be applied and in applying the rule the court will have to remember that to harmonise is not to destroy and that in interpreting the statutes the court always presumes that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legisla- tive intention is that every part of the statute should have effect, and a construction which defeats the intention of the rule-making authority must be avoided. This decision does not help the appellant for in our view in applying the rule of harmonious construction with a view to give effect to the intention o(the legislature the court will not be justified in putting a construction which would restrict the revisionary jurisdiction of the Collector and the Board of Revenue. It may be noted that the Act is of exproprietory nature and the determination of the excess lands is done by the Revenue Officer and on appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In such circumstances, it is only 13roper to presume that the legislature intended that any error or irregularity should. be rectified by higher authorities like the Collector and the Board of Revenue. In our view it will be in conformity with the intention of the legislature to hold that section 59 confers a power of revision of an order passed under section 44(2) of the Act. The learned counsel next referred to a decision of this Court in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar and Others.(2) The rule of construction is stated at p. 791 in the following terms by Venkatarama Ayyar , J. speaking for the Court:--"It is a cardinal rule of construction that when there are in a Statute two provi sions which are in conflict with each other such that both of them cannot stand, they should, if possible. be so interpreted that effect can be given to both, and that a con struction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. One application of this rule is that when there is a law generally dealing with a subject and another dealing particularly with one of the topics comprised therein, the general law is to be construed as yielding to the special in respect of the matters comprisedsection 59 as conferring a power of revision against an order passed under section 44(2) is not in any way contrary to the principle laid down in the aboveis no doubt that section 44(1) provides that the order of the Revenue Officer shall be final subject to the result of an appeal under section 44(2) while no such finality is mentioned in the case of an appeal under section 58. But this cannot conclude the matter for the powers of revision conferred under section 59 are very wide and empowers the Collector or the Board of Revenue to revise any order passed under this Act and(2) empowers the Collector and the Board of Revenue to set aside any irregularity in respect of any proceedings under this Act. As the power of revision is not restricted we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that because of the wording of section 44(2) providing. that the order of the Revenue Officer subject to the result of the appeal would .be final, bars the revisionary jurisdiction of the Collector and the Board of Revenue as provided under section 59. We do not find any conflict between the two sections and the provision as to finality under section 44(2) is provided for so that in the absence of the aggrieved party proc eeding further in the matter the consequences of the vesting of surplus lands under section 45, the preparation of the Compensation Assessment Roll, the settlement of surplus lands etc. can be proceeded