D. Pathak, C.J.
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of O. L. R, Case No. 70 of 1975 initiated under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. Opposite party No. 4 Dibakar Panda made an application under Section 15 of the Act for a declaration that he is a tenant under the present petitioner. The Revenue Officer, Chandbali (opposite party No. 3) by his order dated 19. 8. 76, on consideration of the evidence on record, held that opposite party No. 4 is a Bhag tenant under the petitioner in respect of the and in question. On the basis of the evidence on record, he further held that the Bhag tenancy of opposite party No. 4 is established which needs to be protected. Accordingly, opposite party No. 4 was declared as a Bhag tenant under the petitioner in respect of the land in question with a direction that opposite, party No 4 shall pay one-fourth the gross produce of the land as rent to the petitioner. Opposite party No. 4 was however, advised by the Revenue Officer to file an application under Section 35-A of the Act for declaration of his rayati right over the land in question. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Officer preferred an appeal under Sec, 58 of the Act without success. Being undaunted, he went up in revision and the revisional authcrity. dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the Revenue Officer.
3. Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revenue Officer without going through the records and without any material on record came to a wrong conclusion that opposite party No. 4 is a Bhag chasi under the petitioner. The learned counsel has pointedly drawn cur attention to paragraph 3 of the order dated 19, 1976 passed by the Revenue Officer which reads :
'The O. P. admits that the applicant cultivated the land two years back. He received cash towards Bhag. He is unable to produce any witness in support of his statement.'
The learned counsel submits that this is a mere misreading of the material on record and there is no document on record to show that the petitioner ever admitted opposite party No. 4 to have been in cultivating possession of the land two years back and that he (petitioner) was receiving cash towards Bhag. One would have very well appreciated the submission of Mr. Misra to the effect that the Revenue Officer had written something in paragraph 3 without any material on record had this fact been brought before the appellate authority or before the revisional authority. The order of the appellate authority and that of the revisional authority show that there was no such grievance made before any of those two authorities. As a matter of fact, we have gone through the grounds given in the revision application, but there is no whisper of the grievance sought to be made before us The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the factum of the Revenue Officer writing something in the order without any material on record has been stated in the writ petition. We are constrained to hold that as this fact was not brought either before the appellate authority or before the ravisional authority, it will be too much to expect the petitioner to agitate this matter in a writ jurisdiction. We have very carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As we have already stated as this fact was not brought before the appellate authority or the revisional authority it cannot be allowed to be agitated in this writ application. If we accept the order of the Revenue Officer, and we think we should, the petitioner having admitted the fact of opposite party No. 4 being in cultivating possession of the land in question for the last two years and the petitioner having received cash towards Bhag, the entire matter is clinched. We must observe that the submission of the learned counsel sought to be made here cannot be countenanced. It has been held by a Bench decision of this Court in Rama Santra and others v. Rani Soudamini Manjari Devi, ILR 1966 Cuttack, 673 that :
''Further, when the error complained of is that the Court assumed that a concession had been made when none had in fact been made or that the Court misconceived the terms of the concession or the scope and extent of it, it will not generally appear on the record but will have to be brought before the Court by way of an affidavit and this can only be done by way of review.'
No such thing has been done in this case more so no such -.thing has been agitated either before the appellate authority or before the revisions authority.
In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another, AIR 1982 S.C. l249 the Supreme Court while considering such a submission has to made the following succinct observation.
'We are afraid that we cannot launch in to an inquity. what transpired in the'High Court. It is simply done. public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrain us Matters of Judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt.Judges cannot be dragged into the arena.
4. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by- the authorities below 'In the result,, the writ application is without merit and, it is accordingly dismissed. We make no order for costs. S.C. Mohapatra, I,agree.
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
5. I agree.