# STATE OF ORIS$A AND ORS v. ARAKHITA BISOI

- **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 556
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-04-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 903 of 1976
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, A. C. Gupta Ano P. S. Kailasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-oris-a-and-ors-v-arakhita-bisoi-7201
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

B
Oriss.1 Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by Act 13 of 196S and Act
29 of 1916-Revisional powers ul s 59-Whether an order passed by lhe appellate authority u/s 44 of the Act whicli ha.s become final uls 44(2) is
capable of rel'isiOn by the Collector u/s 59 before the amendment Act 29 of
c
D
E
F
G
H
1916--Construction of S. 59.
·
Under Section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the Revenue Officer
determines the ceiling surplus and on _the termination of the proceedings there~
under, the Revenue Officer u/s 44(1) confirms the draft statement; u/s 44(2)
an appeal lies to the prescnbed 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 enumerate.d in &':b~
section (I). Sub-section ( 1) of S. 59 provides that the Collector may roVJSe
any order passed in appeal by any officer below the rank of a Collector u~er
tfiis Act.
Section 59(1) also empowers the Board of ·Revenue
to
rev1Se
any order passed by the Collector.
Sub-section (2) enables the Collector or
the Board of Revenue suo nwtu or on the application of the party concerned
call for and enmine 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 resporideD.t landlord
that there was a partition between him and his sons was rejected by the
Revenue Officer who determined the surplus extent as 12.08 standard acres.
The appeal preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer having failed. the res~
pondent filed a revision before the Additional
District
Magistrate.
1he
Addi:ional 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 aUowed by the 0-issa High Court by its order
dated lS-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 bin1 under .s. 59 of the Act.
.
'Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court.
HEID : (i) The language of S. 59(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act is
\\'ide enough to enable the Collector to revise any order including an appellate
order under S. 44 of the Act. [561 BJ ·
(ii) In app~ying. the rule of ha!monious -constructio~ with a vi~w .to _giye ·
effect to the . mtention : of the legislature the court will not be 111c;ttlied tn
putting a· construction which would restr'ct 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. legis1ature intended
that anr. error or irregularity should be rectified by higher authorities Uke the
Collector and the Board of Revenue.
[560E]
·
1. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Stafe of U.P. & Ors.
[1961] 3 S.C.R. !SS held not applicable.
The Ben~al Tmmunity Cotnpany Ltd .. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [t9SS]
. 2 S.C.R .• 603 referred to.
(iii) It cannot be said that there is any conflict between S.- 44(1 l and
S. 58 ina.;:much oo S. 44( 1) provides that the ordE>r of the Revenue Officer
shall be fmal, subject to the result of appeal u/s 44(2), while no such finJ.lity
•
·'.;
ORISSA v. BISOI (Kailasam, !.)
557
is mellticm.ed in the case of an appeal u/s 58.
'fhe provision as to finality
u/s 44(2) is provided for so that in the absence of the
a~grieved party
proceeding further in the matter, the consequences of the vestmg of surplus
lands u/s 45, the preparation of the Compensation A-;sessment Roll, the
settlement of surplus lands etc. can be proceeded with. [559 D-F]
A
(iv) The amendment to S. 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 an

## Text

556
A
STATE OF ORIS$A AND ORS.
v.
ARAKHITA BISOI
April 14, 1977
(M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA ANO P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.)
B
Oriss.1 Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by Act 13 of 196S and Act
29 of 1916-Revisional powers ul s 59-Whether an order passed by lhe appellate authority u/s 44 of the Act whicli ha.s become final uls 44(2) is
capable of rel'isiOn by the Collector u/s 59 before the amendment Act 29 of
c
D
E
F
G
H
1916--Construction of S. 59.
·
Under Section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the Revenue Officer
determines the ceiling surplus and on _the termination of the proceedings there~
under, the Revenue Officer u/s 44(1) confirms the draft statement; u/s 44(2)
an appeal lies to the prescnbed 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 enumerate.d in &':b~
section (I). Sub-section ( 1) of S. 59 provides that the Collector may roVJSe
any order passed in appeal by any officer below the rank of a Collector u~er
tfiis Act.
Section 59(1) also empowers the Board of ·Revenue
to
rev1Se
any order passed by the Collector.
Sub-section (2) enables the Collector or
the Board of Revenue suo nwtu or on the application of the party concerned
call for and enmine 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 resporideD.t landlord
that there was a partition between him and his sons was rejected by the
Revenue Officer who determined the surplus extent as 12.08 standard acres.
The appeal preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer having failed. the res~
pondent filed a revision before the Additional
District
Magistrate.
1he
Addi:ional 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 aUowed by the 0-issa High Court by its order
dated lS-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 bin1 under .s. 59 of the Act.
.
'Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court.
HEID : (i) The language of S. 59(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act is
\\'ide enough to enable the Collector to revise any order including an appellate
order under S. 44 of the Act. [561 BJ ·
(ii) In app~ying. the rule of ha!monious -constructio~ with a vi~w .to _giye ·
effect to the . mtention : of the legislature the court will not be 111c;ttlied tn
putting a· construction which would restr'ct 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. legis1ature intended
that anr. error or irregularity should be rectified by higher authorities Uke the
Collector and the Board of Revenue.
[560E]
·
1. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Stafe of U.P. & Ors.
[1961] 3 S.C.R. !SS held not applicable.
The Ben~al Tmmunity Cotnpany Ltd .. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [t9SS]
. 2 S.C.R .• 603 referred to.
(iii) It cannot be said that there is any conflict between S.- 44(1 l and
S. 58 ina.;:much oo S. 44( 1) provides that the ordE>r of the Revenue Officer
shall be fmal, subject to the result of appeal u/s 44(2), while no such finJ.lity
•
·'.;
ORISSA v. BISOI (Kailasam, !.)
557
is mellticm.ed in the case of an appeal u/s 58.
'fhe provision as to finality
u/s 44(2) is provided for so that in the absence of the
a~grieved party
proceeding further in the matter, the consequences of the vestmg of surplus
lands u/s 45, the preparation of the Compensation A-;sessment Roll, the
settlement of surplus lands etc. can be proceeded with. [559 D-F]
A
(iv) The amendment to S. 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
B
it originally stood did not provide for power of revision to the Collector
u/s 59,
[560 A-Bl
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 O.J 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 certificate of fitness granted by it.
The respondent herein is a land-holder whose ceiling surplus was
determined by the Revenue Offi= 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
c
D
E
was a partition between him and his sons and determined the surplus
extent as 12.08 standard acre.. The respondent prefen-ed 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
F
revision before the Additional District
Magistrate,
Ganjam.
The
Additional District Magistrate held that the appellate orders under
section 44 were final and that no revision lay to him. The respondent
thereupon filed a petition under Articles 226 and 22 7 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
G
the Additional District Magistrate had powers to revise the order of
the appellate authority pas·sed 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 under 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.
H
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
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.I\.
A
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 :-
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"44. (1) On the termination of the proceedings under
Section 43, the Revenue Officer shall by order confirm the
draft statement with s.uch alterations or amendments as may
have been made ther.ein under the said Section.
(2) An appeal against the order of the Revenue Oflicer
under sub-section (I) confirming 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 nnder sub-section (I) and 'subject to results of such
appeal, if any, order of thei Revenue Officer shall be final.
Section 58
provides a right of appeal to any p~rson aggrieved by an order passed
under any of the sections enumerated in sub-section (I).
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 appea 1
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 it appears that
any such decision or order shall be
mOflified,
annulled,
reversed or remitted for reconsideration. t:·c CoJ!eGtor
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
concerned 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 it stands does
not put anv restriction on the power of revision by the CollectO<" or
th Board of Revenue for it states that the Collector or the Boan!
of Rewnue' may revise any order passed under this Act which would
i
•
•
ORISSA v. A. BISO! (Kai/asam, J.)
$59
include an order passed under section 44(2). Again sub-section (2)
A
-0f ·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 provid~d 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( I) provides that the order of
the Revenue Officer shall be final subject to the result oJ! an appeal
under section 44(2) while no such finality is mentioned in the case
of an appeal uuder 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 Ao! 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 accepf 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 a11peal 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 land's under section 45, the preparation of the Compensation
Assessment Roll, the settlement of surplus lands etc. can be proceeded witl1.
The learned counsel drew our attention to the amendment to the
Orissa Act by Act 29 of J 976.
The Orissa Land
Reforms .(2nd
Amendment) Act, 1975, and submitted that the amendments introduced to section 44, 45 and 59 would make it clear that the legislature
understood that the sections as they stood before the amendment did
not enable tlie Collector to exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders
passed by the appellate authority under section 44(2) of the Act. Bv
the amending Act section 44, sub-sections (2) and (3) arc amended.
Sub-section (2) ·of section 44 a·s it originally stood provided tliat
subiecf to the result of such appeal, if any, the orders of the Rcv_enue
Officer shall he final and sub-section (3) provided that the draft statement as confirmed or a·s modified in appeal shall be final and conB
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
elusive.
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 crder.
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 provid& 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 coun'sel referred to the decision
in The J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of
U.P. & Ors.('). In construing the provisions o fclause 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 legislative intention
is that every part of the statute should have effect, and a construction
which defeats tbe 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 _harn1onious construction with a view to give effect to
the intention of the legislature the court will not be justified in putting
a constmction 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 theJ 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 proper 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, if wi\l be in conformity with the intention of the Jeirislature
to hold thai 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 Beni?al Immunity Company Limited
v. The State of Bihar and Others.( 2 ) The rule of construction rs stated
at p. 791 in the following terms by Venkatarama Ayyar J. speaking
for the Court :-
"Tl is a cardinal rule of constmction that when there are
in a Statute two provisions which are in conflict with each
other such that both of them canner stand, they should, if
possible, be so interpreted that effect can be given to both.
and that a cons1'ruction which renders either of them inopera.tive 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
(1) [l961J (3) ~.C'.R.185.
(2) [1955] 12) SCR 601,
•
ORISSA v. A. BISOI (Kai/asam, !.)
561
is a law generally dealing with a subject and ~nother dealing
A
particularly with one of the topics comprised therein, the
genernl law is to be construed as yielding to the special in
respect of .the matters comprised therein."
Construing scctjon 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.
B
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
Acl.
In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs.
.
I
S.R.
Appeal dismissed.