Case: State Of Orissa And Ors Vs. Arakhita Bisoi

The respondent herein is a land-holder whose ceiling surplus was determined by the Revenue Officer under section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, as amended by Act 13 of 1965 and subsequently by Act 29 ofRevenue Officer rejected the plea of the respondent that there was a partition between him and his sons and determined the surplus extent as 12.08 standard acres. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer confirmed the order of the Revenue Office r and dismissed the appeal Against the order of the appellate authority the respondent filed a revision before the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam. The Additional District Magistrate held that the appellate orders trader section 44 were final and that no revision lay to him. The respondent thereupon filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate rejecting the. revision petition. A Bench of the Orissa High Court by an order dated 15th July, 1976, allowed the writ petition holding that the Additional District Magistrate had powers to revise the order of the appellate authority passed under section 44 by virtue of the powers conferred on him under section 59 of the Act. The High Court came to this conclusion that a revision was entertainable tinder section 59 by the Additional District Magistrate even before the amendment introduced by Orissa Act 29 of 1976, the details of which will be referred to later.

Reasoning:
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