R.N. Misra, C.J.
1. The petitioners and opposite parties 2 to 19 were ex-intermediaries of two villages which constituted estates. The two villages vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act on 1-4-60. Compensation Case No. 293 of 1962 and Compensation Case No. 259 of 1962-63 were registered end compensation was assessed. The assessed compensation amounts were deposited in the treasury as revenue deposit in 1967. The petitioners and opposite parties 2 to 19 contended that there was no due publication of the assessment roll as required under Section 31 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act. Therefore, they were not bound by 1 he compensation determined by the Compensation Officer. An application was filed before the Compensation Officer for reopening the matter from the stage of publication of the draft assessment rolls. On 2-2-74 the Compensation Officer held that the draft assessment rolls were served on the intermediaries and as there was a bona fide mistake in finalising the assessment rolls de novo publication of the draft assessment rolls should be made and he directed service of a copy on all the ex-intermediaries under Section 31 (1) of the Act. Draft assessment rolls of 1964 and 1966 were again published and objections were filed to the said draft assessment lolls. On 4-3-75 the Compensation Officer determined the compensation for the two villages. The State preferred an appeal against the order dated 4-3-75 and the Collector held that the Compensation Officer had no authority to reopen the cases and allowed the appeals. Second Appeals were carried to the Board of Revenue against the reversing decisions of the Collector by the petitioners, and on 20th July, 1978 the second appeals have been dismissed. This is how thesetwo Civil Revisions have been filed under Section 32-B of the Estates Abolition Act.
2. Mr. Basu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the petitions raises two contentions, namely-
(i) Section 31 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act requires that at the time when draft publication is made of the assessment roll, notice thereof shall be given by registered post with acknowledgment due to the intermediaries. Admittedly, this has not been done and the Collector as also the Member, Board of Revenue have tried to meet this default by saying that the ex-intermediaries knew about the developments. The evidence regarding knowledge is also not clear.
(ii) The next contention of Mr. Basu is that on 2-2-74 the Compensation Officer had vacated the draft assessment rolls and had required fresh assessment to be made. No challenge was laid against that order. Once that order was allowed to become final, it was not open in the challenge to the order dated 4-3-75 to Question the reopening. At the most, the quantum of compensation could have been assailed in appeal by the Collector.
Both the points seem to be weighty and neither the Collector nor the Board of Revenue has pointedly dealt with them. In the circumstances, I accept the revision petitions, vacate the orders of the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue passed in appeals and restore the orders of the Compensation Officer.
3. Both the Civil Revisions are allowed. There would be no order for costs.