http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ARAKHITA BISOI

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/04/1977

BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1194            1977 SCR  (3) 556  1977 SCC  (3) 242

ACT:             Orissa  Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by Act  13  of         1965  and Act 29 of 1976--Revisional powers u/s  59--Whether         an order passed by the appellate authority u/s 44 of the Act         which  has become final u/s 44(2) is capable of revision  by         the  Collector  u/s  59  before  the  amendment  Act  29  of         1976--Construction of S. 59.

HEADNOTE:             Under  Section  43 of the Orissa Land Reforms  Act,  the         Revenue  Officer determines the ceiling surplus and  on  the         termination  of  the  proceedings  thereunder,  the  Revenue         Officer u/s 44(1) confirms the draft statement; u/s 44(2) an         appeal  lies to the prescribed authority against  the  order         under sub-section (1) and subject to results of such appeal,         if  any, order of the Revenue Officer shall be final.   Sec-         tion  58 provides a right of appeal to any person  aggrieved         by  an order passed under any of the Sections enumerated  in         subsection (1).  Sub-section (1) of S. 59 provides that  the         Collector  may  revise  any order passed in  appeal  by  any         officer  below  the  rank of a  Collector  under  this  Act.         Section 59(1) also empowers the Board of Revenue  to  revise         any order passed by the Collector.  Sub-section (2)  enables         the  Collector  or the Board of Revenue sue motu or  on  the         application of the party concerned call for and examine  the         record  in  respect  of any proceedings under  the  Act  and         modify, annual reverse or remit for reconsideration.             In  the  proceedings u/s 38 of the Act the plea  of  the         respondent  landlord that there was a partition between  him         and his sons was rejected by the Revenue Officer who  deter-         mined the surplus extent as 12.08 standard acres. The appeal         preferred  before the Sub-Divisional Officer having  failed,         the  respondent  filed  a  revision  before  the  Additional         District   Magistrate.  The Additional Magistrate held  that         the  appellate orders u/s 44 are final and that no  revision         lay  to  him.  The writ petition filed  against  this  order         filed by the respondent was allowed by the Orissa High Court         by  its  order dated 15-7-1976 holding that  the  Additional         Magistrate  had powers to revise an order of  the  appellate         authority passed u/s 44 by virtue of the powers conferred on         him under s. 59of the Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

       Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court,             HELD:  (i) The language of S. 59(1) of the  Orissa  Land         Reforms Act is wide enough to enable the Collector to revise         any  order including an appellate order under S. 44  of  the         Act.  [561 B]             (ii)  In  applying the rule of  harmonious  construction         with a view to give effect to the intention of the  legisla-         ture the court will not be justified in putting a  construc-         tion  which would restrict the revisionary  jurisdiction  of         the Collector and the Board of Revenue.  [560E]             In  the instant case, the Act is of expropratory  nature         and  the  determination of the excess lands is done  by  the         Revenue Officer.  The legislature intended that any error or         irregularity should be rectified by higher authorities  like         the Collector and the Board of Revenue.  [560E]             J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v.  State         of U.P. & Ors. [1961] 3 S.C.R. 185 held not applicable.             The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. The State of Bihar &         Ors. [1955] 2 S.C-R.. 603 referred to.             (iii)  It  cannot  be said that there  is  any  conflict         between  S.  44(1) and 8. 58 inasmuch as S.  44(1)  provides         that  the order of the Revenue Officer shall be final,  sub-         ject to the result of appeal u/s 44(2), while no such final-         ity         557         is mentioned in the case of an appeal u/s 58.  The provision         as  to  finality u/s 44(2) is provided for so  that  in  the         absence  of  the aggrieved party proceeding further  in  the         matter, the consequences of the vesting of surplus lands u/s         45, the preparation of the Compensation Assessment Roll, the         settlement of surplus lands etc. can be proceeded with. [559         D-F]             (iv)  The amendment to 8. 44(3) by the Amendment Act  of         1975  making it clear that a right to revision  is  provided         for  orders passed u/s 44(2) does not make  any  difference.         The amendment could not mean that S. 44(2) as it  originally         stood  did not provide for power of revision to the  Collec-         tor’ u/s 59.  [560 A-B]

JUDGMENT:            CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  903  of         1976.             Appeal  from the Judgment and Order dated the  15-7-1976         of the Orissa High Court in OJ.C No. 698 of 1976.             G.  Rath, Advocate General, Orissa, R.K. Mehta  for  the         Appellants.            Vepa Parthasarthy and C.S. Rao for Respondents.            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             KAILASAM,  J.--This  appeal is by the  State  of  Orissa         represented  by the Secretary, Revenue  Department,  against         the  judgment of a Bench of the Orissa High Court on a  cer-         tificate of fitness granted by it.             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 of 1976.             The Revenue 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 Officer and dismissed the  appeal Against the         order  of  the appellate authority the  respondent  filed  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

       revision  before the Additional District  Magistrate,   Gan-         jam.   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  Magis-         trate  had powers to revise the order of the  appellate  au-         thority  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 entertain-         able 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.             The only question that arises in this appeal is  whether         an order passed by the appellate authority under section  44         which has become         9--502 SCI/77         558         final  under  section 44(2) is capable of  revision  by  the         Collector  under section 59 before the amendment of the  Act         in 1976.  Section 44 runs as follows :--                               "44.  (1)  On the termination  of  the                       proceedings  under  Section  43,  the  Revenue                       Officer shall by order confirm the       draft                       statement with such alterations or  amendments                       as may   have been made therein under the said                       Section.                               (2) An appeal against the order of the                       Revenue  Officer under ’sub-section (1 )  con-                       firming  the  statement  if  presented  within                       thirty  days from the date of the order  shall                       lie to the prescribed authority and subject to                       the results of such appeal, if any, the orders                       of the Revenue Officer shall be final."         Under  section 44(1) the Revenue Officer confirms the  draft         statement  and  under section 44(2) an appeal  lies  to  the         prescribed authority against the order under sub-section (1)         and subject to results of such appeal, if any, order of  the         Revenue Officer shall be final.  Section 58 provides a right         of  appeal to any person aggrieved by an order passed  under         any of the sections enumerated in sub-section. (1).  As  the         decision  in  this case will depend  upon  the  construction         that-is put upon section 59 we extract section 59(1) and (2)         in full.                       "59. Revision:                               (1  )  The Collector  may  revise  any                       order  passed in appeal by any  officer  below                       the rank of a Collector under this Act and the                       Board  of Revenue may revise any order  passed                       by the Collector under this Act and the period                       of  limitation for such revision shall  be  as                       may be prescribed.                               (2)  For the purposes  of  sub-section                       (1)  the Collector or the Board of Revenue  as                       the case may be may suo motu or on application                       of either party or any interested person  call                       for  and examine the record of any  matter  in                       respect  of any proceedings under this Act  as                       to the regularity of such  proceedings or  the                       correctness,  legality  or  propriety  of  any                       decision or order passed thereon and if in any                       case  if  appears that any  such  decision  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

                     order shall be  modified,  annulled,  reversed                       or remitted for reconsideration, the Collector                       or  Board of  Revenue as the case may be,  may                       consider accordingly."         Sub-section ( 1 ) provides that the Collector may revise any         order  passed in appeal by any officer below the rank  of  a         Collector  under  this Act. It also empowers  the  Board  of         Revenue to revise an order passed by the Collector under the         Act.  Sub-section (2) enables the collector or the Board  of         Revenue  suo  motu or on the application of the  party  con-         cerned  call  for and examine the record in respect  of  any         proceedings  under  the Act and modify, annual,  reverse  or         remit  for  reconsideration  such a decision  to  the  lower         authority.   The section as if stands does not put  any  re-         striction  on the power of revision by the Collector or  the         Board of Revenue for it states that the  Collector  or   the         Board of Revenue may revise any order passed under this  Act         which would         559         include  an  order passed under section 44(2).   Again  sub-         section (2) of section 59 provides that the Collector or the         Board  of  Revenue may examine the record of any  matter  in         respect of any proceedings under the Act which would include         the proceedings under section 44(2).             The submission of the learned counsel for the  appellant         is that the power of revision under section 59 is restricted         to an appeal that is disposed of under section 58 and is not         available against an order passed under section 44(2).   The         learned  counsel  very  strongly relied on  the  wording  of         section  44(2) which provides that the order of the  Revenue         Officer  shall be final subject to the result of  an  appeal         provided  under section 44(2) and therefore submits that  no         other  relief  is  available to  the  aggrieved  party.  The         learned counsel in contrast referred us to section 58  where         the  order of the lower authority is not stated to be  final         subject  to  the result of the appeal,  As  no  finality  is         provided  for orders passed on appeal under section 58,  the         submission was that a revision under section 59 is available         for  those orders but orders passed under section 44(2)  are         final and they are not subject to revision under section 59.             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 final-         ity is mentioned in the case of an appeal under section  58.         But this cannot conclude the matter for the powers of  revi-         sion  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  irregu-         larity 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         proceeding  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.             The learned counsel drew our attention to the  amendment         to  the  Orissa  Act by Act 29 of  1976.   The  Orissa  Land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

       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 section 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  con-         firmed or as modified in appeal shall be final and con-         560         clusive.    By the amendment sub-section (2) is  recast  and         sub-section  (3) provides that the draft statement  as  con-         firmed  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  pro-         vides 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 i,tended 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-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

                     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 inoper-                       ative 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                       561                       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."         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  deci-         sion.             We  agree with the view taken by the Orissa  High  Court         that the language of section 59(1) is wide enough to  enable         the  Collector  to revise any order including  an  appellate         order under section 44 of the Act.  In the result the appeal         is dismissed with costs.         S.R.                                     Appeal dismissed.         562