KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW

BHUBANESHWAR

LAND LAW

CONTRACT LABOUR IN INDIA

CASE STUDY

Drafted by:

1. Ayushman Nag (Roll. No. 1783035)

B.A. LLB
Section - A
Batch - 2017 - 2022
9th Semester

SUBMITED TO PROFESSOR - SIDDHART SEKHAR DAS

 Sri Bhanuganga Tribhuban Deb vs Tahsildar-Cum
Revenue Officer
Equivalent Citation: AIR 1982 Ori 83

Forum: Orissa High Court

Brief Facts of the case:

1.The petitioner was the ex ruling Chief of the State of Bamra and held broad
properties. Outfitted temporary return under Section 40-A, of the Orissa Land
changes act, consequently based on the return a draft articulation was distributed.

2.The petitioner preferred objection with the draft articulation and fought that 72.09
decimals of land were held by a modern and business undertaking and were
excluded while deciding as far as possible.

3.He additionally battled that there were certain tanks inside a space of somewhat
more than 6 sections of land which were utilized for pisciculture and were not
associated with horticultural tasks and henceforth such tanks were not to be
considered for deciding as far as possible.

4. Further the third conflict was that the applicant had lands situated in specific
regions arranged inside the metropolitan region and since such grounds were not
associated with any agrarian activities they were likewise not to be considered while
ascertaining as far as possible.

5. The revenue officer rejected all the contentions except holding that 72.09
decimals of land were exempt under section 38 (b) of the act. No appeal was filed by
the petitioner against the order of the revenue officer while determining the ceiling.
The appellate authority even though there was no appeal looked into the propriety of
the order of the revenue officer in regard to 72.09 decimals of land and observed
that the revenue officer is advised to reconsider his decision and make necessary
amendment in the confirm draft statement. All the other contentions of the
petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority.

6. The petitioner thereupon carried a revision to the revenue divisional

commissioner. All the contentions were re-canvassed before the revisional authority
and the revisional authority sustained the appellate order giving a direction that as
far as the urban lands were concerned the case would be remanded for enquiry, as
to whether the same was used for agriculture or was ancillary to agriculture.

Arguments of the counsel on behalf of the petitioner.

1. As no appeal was made the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to the question
of exemption of 72.09 decimals of land.

2. Land located within the urban area where exempt from consideration for
computing the ceiling limit as such lands where not connected with agricultural
operations

3. The tanks used for pisciculture where not connected with agriculture and since
pisciculture was not per se within the definition of agriculture the tanks should be
exempt from the ceiling limit.
RATIO DICEDENDI of the Judgement

1. With reference to the revenue officers order of exemption of 72.09 decimals of

land, the divisional bench of the Orissa High Court held that, the revenue officers
order was open to challenge in appeal at the instance of the state government as
clearly provided in section 44 (2)(b) of the act. Where there was a right of appeal and
the same was not availed, the relief granted by the revenue officer should not have
been questioned by the appellate authority and hence the direction of the appellate
authority that the revenue officer should reconsider the question was not a valid
one.

2. With reference to the contention that the tanks were used for pisciculture, and
hence it should be exempt from ceiling limit, the bench was of the opinion that
Section 2 (1) of the Orissa Land reforms act, which defines agriculture is an
inclusive one and certain operations which may not ordinarily go under the head of
agriculture has been included in the definition, and hence the legislative intent is
clear that tank would be taken into account while determining the ceiling area. The
scheme of the statute does not make any provision for excluding tanks and on the
submission that the tanks were meant for pisciculture the petitioner cannot obtain
exemption of tank in the matter of computation of the ceiling area.

3. With reference to the final contention of the petitioner that certain lands are
located within urban area. The bench were of the opinion that unless such lands or
buildings are connected with the agricultural operation of the petitioner they cannot
be taken into account. Where lands are located in the urban area, it is for the
revenue officer to establish the link to show that such lands were connected with
agricultural operations and therefore to be taken into account otherwise house
located in the urban area would not be includible. The divisional commissioner has
already directed an enquiry regarding the homestead, the bench further ordered to
include the revenue officer to inquire into the tenability of the petitioner's contention
whether the urban lands are to be taken into account.