JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda in R.F.A. No. 19 of 2004 in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No. 595 of 2001. The trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the present respondent no. 1 as the plaintiff for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction and for recovery of possession in case so found. Being aggrieved by the same, the said unsuccessful plaintiff having carried the appeal, the same has been allowed and the suit has been decreed granting to him the reliefs which he had prayed for. 2.For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial Court. 3.The plaintiff’s case is that the suit land originally belonged to one Brundaban Ch. Patro and others. It stood recorded in their names in the record of record of right of the year 1927-28. It is further stated that Brundaban had mortgaged Ac. 0.10 decimals of land from out of the total land Ac. 0.44 decimals in favour of Nimapara Central Cooperative Bank. As Brundaban failed to repay the loan, the land was put to sale through auction and finally it was purchased by one Satya Narayan Swain. He got it by registered sale-deed dated 29.12.1967 and the possession of the said land was also delivered to him. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the land measuring Ac. 0.08 decimals from out of that Ac. 0.10 decimals from said Satya Narayan under registered sale-deed dated 21.01.1974. He also claims to have taken delivery of possession of the said land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that since the date of his purchase, he has been in continuous possession of the suit land having constructed two thatched house over the same which he has been using all along, with the rest as bari growing seasonal crops over there. It is stated that he again purchased Ac. 0.11 decimals of land from out of Ac. It is stated that he again purchased Ac. 0.11 decimals of land from out of Ac. 0.13 decimals under Sabik Plot No. 347 under Sabik Khata No. 344 corresponding to Hal plot No. 280/1554 and Hal Khata No. 533 respectively from Brundaban and two others by registered sale deed and had also taken delivery of possession of those lands. From one Binay Krushna Patra, the plaintiff also claims to have purchased Ac. 0.03 decimals of land under Sabik plot No. 347 in Sabik Khata No. 324. All these purchased lands are said to have been amalgamated by the plaintiff and thus to be in his possession. It is further stated that the North-East corner of all the purchased lands in mouza Kulintaragrama, there adjoins the purchased land of Ac. 0.08 decimals of mouza Sarata. It is stated that the plaintiff has been using a portion of his purchased as under Sabik Plot No. 1237 as his private road indicated as CDEFGHI in the sketch map so as to go to his dwelling house standing over the land under Sabik Plot No. 347 in mouza Kulintaragrama and there remains no other approach road to his dwelling house. The defendant no. 2, the School is situated on the Northern-Western side of the plaintiff’s land and the Government road is connected to the Northern side of the School. It is alleged that when the plaintiff was in possession of the above purchased lands, the Headmaster of the School, defendant no. 3 forcibly tried to encroach by extending the school boundary towards the Southern portion which is the Western side of the purchased land of the plaintiff shown as CDEI in the sketch map appended to the plaint. So, the plaintiff had to approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for necessary of order of restrain against the defendants from interfering in his possession. It is stated that when the matter was pending there, an amicable settlement being arrived at, the proceeding was withdrawn. However, again he had to approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in view of disturbance and during that period when the plaintiff went for verification of the record of right as well as the map, to his utter surprise, he found that the land from Sabik Plot NO. 1237 with an area of Ac. 0.08 decimals out of Ac. However, again he had to approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in view of disturbance and during that period when the plaintiff went for verification of the record of right as well as the map, to his utter surprise, he found that the land from Sabik Plot NO. 1237 with an area of Ac. 0.08 decimals out of Ac. 40 decimals in mouza Sarata has been carved out as Hal Plot No. 728 measuring an area of Ac. 0.05 decimals and out of the left over area of Ac. 0.03. decimals, an extent of land of Ac. 0.01 decimals under plot NO. 727 have been wrongly recorded as road in favour of the Government as indicated in FGH & I in the sketch map, when rest Ac. 0.02 decimals of land has been taken to the Hal plot No. 726 of the defendants. It is also stated that the land measuring Ac. 0.12 decimals under Sabik plot No. 1236 stood recorded in the name of defendants as it reveals from the record of right and map of the year 1927-28. However, during consolidation operation, since the plaintiff remained frequently absent from his village for the purpose of his business, the same being taken advantage of by his enemies and they having gained over the consolidation authority have managed to carve out a plot i.e., Hal plot NO. 726 covering area of Ac. 0.15 decimals instead of Sabik area of Ac. 0.12 decimals. The plaintiff claims that the defendants are not in possession of such excess land which is purchased portion of land under Sabik plot No. 1237 at any point of time. And for that reason they are every time threatening to disposes the plaintiff. It is next stated that if the portion of the suit land marked as CDE & I in the sketch map is blocked by putting up permanent structure, it would close the entry to the plaintiff’s dwelling house. It is pertinent to state here that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff alleged this dispossession in the hands of the defendant no. 3 by putting up some construction. Therefore, prayer for recovery of possession of said encroached land was advanced over and above the other prayers relating to declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and injunction. 5.The defendant no. 3 by putting up some construction. Therefore, prayer for recovery of possession of said encroached land was advanced over and above the other prayers relating to declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and injunction. 5.The defendant no. 3 while traversing the plaint averments pleaded that the dwelling house of Nilakantha Das is situated between the three plots and there was an alternative road for the plaintiff on the Northern side of the dwelling house through an irrigation embankment which ultimately connect the Government road. It is claimed that the consolidation authorities were never biased and were not influenced for carving out plot No. 726 measuring an area of Ac. 0.15 decimals and that is in possession of the School since its inception to the knowledge of all concerned. 6.On such rival pleadings, the trial Court framed five issues. Having taken up issue no. 4 first for decision, which concerns with the right, title and interest of the plaintiff, finally on analysis of evidence let in by the parties, it has answered the issue against the plaintiff holding that the same is no more open to be adjudicated in view of the order passed by the Consolidation Authority leading to the publication of the record of right and attainment of its finality and as such the issue sought to be raised and decided in the civil suit has practically been refused to be taken up for decision having said the decision of the consolidation authorities to be operating as resjudicata. Next going through the provision of Section 51 of the OCH & PFL Act 1972, the plaintiff’s suit has also been held to be not maintainable. 7.The unsuccessful plaintiff having carried an appeal has been able to get dismissal of the suit set aside and the suit thus has been decreed. The lower appellate Court upon thread bare discussion of evidence on record, in the backdrop of the rival pleadings set aside both the findings of the trial Court and instead has held the plaintiff to be having the right, title and interest over the suit land and also to his entitlement of a decree for recovery of possession of the land as shown in the sketch map being in forcible possession of the defendant no. 3. 3. 8.By order dated 28.11.2006, the appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned lower appellate Court was correct in ignoring the decision of the consolidation authorities, decided under the Provisions of O.C.H. & P.F.L Act, which in law confers valid title and has a statutory presumption under Section 25 and 26 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act? (2) Whether the plaintiff’s suit is barred under Section 51 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, when admittedly consolidation authorities had recorded title in presence of the parties prior to closure of Consolidation, and in the absence of any challenge in the higher statutory forums, the same operates as statutory resjudicata under Section 14 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act? (3) Whether the learned lower appellate Court was correction ignoring the statutory recordings under the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, when law is not required to be pleaded in the written statement albeit the defense stand in the written statement on the question of jurisdiction and resjudicata? All the above three substantial questions of law are inter connected and, therefore, it is convenient to take up all those together for being answered. 9.The Record of Right published on 07.01.1928 Ext. 6 shows that over the land under sabik plot no. 1236 measuring Ac. 0.12 decimals, of mouza Sarata School Ghara stood. Ext. A, the settlement khatian comes to increase to the area as Ac 0.15 decimals in hal plot no. 726 which corresponds to the land as it clearly finds mention in Ext. 5 and to that excess extent, the defendant no. 3 claims to be in possession since the establishment of the school. However, it is not stated as to how these Ac. 0.03 decimals of land came to be added in hal settlement. During trial, evidence has been led from the side of the defendant no.3 that there was a gift by the landlords of lands under sabik khata no. 94, plot nos. 1236 and 1237 to the extent of Ac. 0.12 decimals and Ac. 0.03 decimals. The consolidation Record of Right finds mention of Ac. 0.15 ;decimals in the name of the ‘Sikshya Bibhaga’. No document whatsoever it may be however relating to the gift is forthcoming. It is further stated by defendant no. 3 that during this consolidation operation, Ac. 0.03 decimals of land under sabik plot no. 0.12 decimals and Ac. 0.03 decimals. The consolidation Record of Right finds mention of Ac. 0.15 ;decimals in the name of the ‘Sikshya Bibhaga’. No document whatsoever it may be however relating to the gift is forthcoming. It is further stated by defendant no. 3 that during this consolidation operation, Ac. 0.03 decimals of land under sabik plot no. 1237 was recorded in the name of the school in terms of compromise and an order to that effect being passed. The compromise is said to have been effected by the school, the plaintiff and other land owners in the vicinity. This fact has neither been pleaded in the written statement nor D.W. 1 examined on behalf of the defendant no. 3 has stated so. The trial Court has discarded the case of the plaintiff just merely relying on the consolidation records as very rightly has been pointed out by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the defendants were never parties to the said compromise. In that situation, the compromise under any circumstance is not binding on the plaintiff. The compromise is thus not having the legal footing which has been rightly held by the lower appellate Court. Consequently there cannot be any acquisition of title by the defendant no.3 over Ac. 0.03 decimals of land by way of compromise. Thus, it appears that the lower appellate Court rightly held that he plaintiff has the right, title and interest in view of the overwhelming documentary and oral evidence on that score in support of his case which have been discussed in detail and no such infirmity also is noticed therein. As regards of the bar contained under Section 51(2) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972, the very compromise having been found to be not in accordance with law wherein the defendant no. 3 was not a party, the lower appellate Court has rightly held the suit to be maintainable for the reliefs claimed when other tests as laid down in Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gulzar Khan vrs. Commissioner, Consolidation, 1993 (II) OLR 194 stand satisfied for the same. The above discussion and reasons accordingly provide answers to the substantial questions of law. 10.Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order is passed as to cost. Appeal dismissed.