JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The petitioners in this Civil Revision filed title suit No. 75 of 1987 in the Court Of the Munsif. 2nd Court; Cuttack (now Civil Judge, Junior Division) for the following reliefs : "(a) Let the status of the plaintiffs as the legitimate widow and children of late Bansidhar Mohanty be declared. (b) Let the cost of the suit be.deciroiid.in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant. (c) Let the defendant be restrained from asserting his right as the sole heir of late Bansidhar Mohanty." By judgment and decree dated October 15, 1989 the trial Court, decreed, the suit declaring chat the petitioners are the widow and chjl,dren of late Banshidhar Mohanty and restraining the original defendant, the predecessor- in-interest of the present opp. parties from asserting that he was the sole heir of late Banshidhar Mohanty. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court. Rabindra Kishore Mohanty, the original defendant filed Title Appeal No. 70 of 1989 in the Court of District Judge, Cuttack. 3. During pendency of the said suit in the trial Court by notification No. 861 of 1987 dated November 26, 1987 two villages, namely : Mulusuang and Nimal where late Banshidhar Mohanty had properties were brought under consolidation operation. On or about September 14, 1995 the said Rabindra Kishore Mohanty, the appellant in Title Appeal No. 70 of 1 989 filed an application u/s 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act) to record an order of abatement of the appeal u/s 4(4) of the Consolidation Act. By judgment and order dated April 17, 1996 the lower appellate Court allowed the said application filed by Rabindra Kisho're Mohanty and passed the following order : "The petition filed by the appellant is allowed on contest in part. The suit as well as the appeal regarding declaration of status are abated and so far the relief of injunction is stayed till the disposal of the consolidation proceeding Case to 26.8.1996 for further order " The present petitioners, who were respondents in the said appeal have filed the present revision challenging the said order of abatement passed by the lower appellate Court. Referring to the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Consolidation Act the learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that their suit being a suit for declaration of status simplicitor without any prayer for declaration of any right or interest in any land situated within the consolidation area, the Court below committed error in recording an order of abatemerit of the suit as well as appeal. 4. The material Sections being Section 4 (4) and Section 51 of the Consolidation Act are quoted below : "4. Effect of notification :......... (4) - every suit and proceedings for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area in regard to which proceedings, could be or ought to be started under this Act, which is pending before any Civil Court, whether of the first instance or appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court before which such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated : Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving the parties concerned an: opportunity of being heard ;" "51. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions contained in Clause (3)of Section 4 and Sub- section (I) of Section 7- (1) all questions relating to right, title, interest and liability in land lying in the consolidation area, except those coming within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law for the time being in force, shall be decided under the provisions of this Act by the appropriate authority during the consolidation operations; and (2) no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an officer or authority empowered under this Act is competent to decide." It appears from the language of Section 51(1) that the consolidation authorities have been conferred power to decide all questions relating to right, title, interest and liability in land lying in the consolidation area. Section 4 (4) of the Consolidation Act also speaks of suit and proceedings for declaration of any right or interest in any land situated within the consolidation area. Section 4 (4) of the Consolidation Act also speaks of suit and proceedings for declaration of any right or interest in any land situated within the consolidation area. From the express language of the aforesaid two provisions, it is clear that the consolidation authorities' jurisdiction is extended to question relating to right, title, interest and liability in any land lying in a consolidation area. 5. In the suit the petitioners have not prayed for any declaration of right, title or interest in any land. They have prayed for a declaration of their status as the widow and children of late Banshidhar Mohanty and a consequential permanent injunction. In view of the express provisions of Sections 4(4) and 51, of the Consolidation Act, it appears that the petitioners' suit being a suit for simplicities declaration of status was not hit by the said provisions. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the opp. parties has referred to the decision of the Division Bench in Jairam Samantray Vs. Baikuntha Samantaray and Others, to point out that the consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to decide the question of status if such questions arise ancillary or incidentally for adjudication of right, title and interest in a property. There is no dispute about the said position of law. But the consolidation authorities can embark upon such determination ancillary or incidentally only if the said question of status has not already been determined finally by a competent Civil Court. In Jairam Samantray's case (supra) the Division Bench has expressly mentioned that "seeking a declaration simipliciter as to legal character as contemplated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and not within the competence of the Consolidation authorities." It is also settled that a Civil Court cannot be denied jurisdiction unless such jurisdiction has been expressly and unambiguously taken away by any law. As already pointed out neither Section 51 nor Section 4 (4) of the Consolidation Act contemplates to affect a suit for a simpliciter declaration of legal character. A proceeding for simpliciter declaration of status is not barred under the provisions of the Consolidation Act. As already pointed out neither Section 51 nor Section 4 (4) of the Consolidation Act contemplates to affect a suit for a simpliciter declaration of legal character. A proceeding for simpliciter declaration of status is not barred under the provisions of the Consolidation Act. However, if there is no adjudication by any competent Civil Court and the question of status remains an open question, such question arising incidentally in course of determining the right, title or interest in any land, the consolidation authorities can determine the status to enable them to adjudicate the rights, title and interest of the parties before it. 7. Any decision or determination in exercise of a jurisdiction of ancillary or collateral character is subject to the decision of the competent Civil Courts. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarjoo Prasad Singh. While considering the scope and limit of jurisdiction of the Bhagchas Officer Under Sections 17. 18 and 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, it has been observed : "........ In my opinion, although the statutory Tribunals have been vested with the jurisdiction to determine the question about the existence of the relationship of bargadar, such jurisdiction being of an ancillary and collateral character was not intended to oust jurisdiction of the Civil Courts when the dispute is whether a person is a tenant or not......" A Division Bench of the said High Court also reiterated the said proposition in Sudarshan Ghosh Vs. Janakinath Pandit. This Court in Masudi Mahammad v. Saju Bibi and Ors. reported in 86 (1998) CLT 595 has also held : "........Since the Consolidation authorities cannot finally decide about the question of status of a particular person and since the Record of Rights prepared by them depended primarily upon the question of status, such conclusion arrived at by them cannot be said to be binding on the Civil Court." 8. If an adjudication has already been made by a competent Civil Court the incidental or collateral jurisdiction of a special forum cannot affect the effect of the said judgment and decree declaring the status simpliciter particularly when the suit was filed before any notification u/s 3 of the Consolidation Act was issued and such suit is not hit by the prohibition contained in any of the provisions of the said Act. 9. When an adjudication made by a competent Civil Court is under appeal in any higher forum any determination of status by the Consolidation authorities in exercise of its incidental or collateral power will be subject to the ultimate decision of the general civil forum. Accordingly, an appeal against judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court declaring status/ legal character simpliciter in a suit filed before the notification u/s .3 of the Consolidation Act does not abate u/s 4(4) of the Consolidation Act. 10. In the present case, the suit was filed before issuance of notification u/s 3 of the Consolidation Act and it was decreed before any determination of status by consolidation authorities. In my view. Section 4(4) of the Consolidation Act is not attracted to the present suit and appeal and accordingly, the Court below committed error in recording an order of abatement of the suit and the appeal in the present case. It is made clear that the question whether after publication of notification under Sect.3 of the Consolidation Act, a suit for sirnpliciter declaration of legal status having impact on the right, title or interest in any land in the consolidation area can be filed or not is not decided in this Judgment. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The Court of Appeal below is directed to dispose of the Title Appeal No. 70 of 1989 within; a period of three months from, the date of arrival of records. L.C.R. be sent down immediately. Final Result : Allowed