Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1175 (ORI)

Arnapurna Singh v. Rama Chandra Singh

2017-10-18

S.K.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT S.K.MISHRA, J. - This judgment arises out of two writ applications, both filed by Arnapurna Singh challenging the combined judgment delivered by the learned Commissioner, Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision Cases Nos. 204 to 209 of 2015. 2. The facts of the case are similar in all the cases. Certain lands were recorded in the name of Haramani Singh. It is claimed by the petitioner that at the time of her marriage, all these lands have been gifted orally by Haramani Singh in favour of the present petitioner. It is alleged that though the land was in possession of the petitioner, without her consent and without her knowledge, the said Haramani Singh sold different portions of land to different opposite parties. Then the village was published under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, (for brevity, “the Act”) for consolidation. During pendency of the consolidation, the petitioner filed a civil suit, which was disposed of on the date of filing. It is borne out from the record that on 12.3.1992 the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara in T.S. No.48 of 1992 recorded that the plaint is admitted, the defendant appeared by executing special power in favour of the B.C. Jena, Advocate and both the parties have filed compromise petition and the case was disposed of on compromise. It may be noted here that Haramani Singh did not appear in person. Now on the basis of this compromise, the petitioner claims that the entire property should be recorded in her name and all the sale deeds should be declared void. At the outset, Ms. Ratho, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that there was no dispute about the fact that the village in question was notified under Section 3 (1) of the Act by the time the suit was filed and as per Section 51, no Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit for deciding the right, title, interest and liabilities in land lying in the consolidable area. It is appropriate to take note of Section 51 of the Act, which reads as follows : “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 Clause (3) of Section 4 and Sub-section (1) of Section 7. It is appropriate to take note of Section 51 of the Act, which reads as follows : “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 Clause (3) of Section 4 and Sub-section (1) 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.” 3. Mr. P. Behera, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Division Bench in Hara Prasad Das and others v. Ramballav Das and others, 1985 (1) OLR 464 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that where second appeal was pending before this Court at the time the notification of consolidation was issued under Section 3 (1) of the Act, which fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and accordingly, the second appeal was disposed of without being aware that the consolidation operation has started for the village where the said land situates. It was in the considered view of the Court that the judgment and decree passed by this Court in the Second Appeal is binding and valid. However, the facts of this case are different. If the area is declared to be consolidable and consolidation operation was started under Section 3 (1) of the Act, as per Section 4 of the Act, all pending cases abate. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and the Civil proceeding continued then as per the Division Bench judgment, the decree will be valid and binding. So, this judgment is not applicable to this case in hand as in this case the suit was filed after publication of Section 3 (1) notification. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and the Civil proceeding continued then as per the Division Bench judgment, the decree will be valid and binding. So, this judgment is not applicable to this case in hand as in this case the suit was filed after publication of Section 3 (1) notification. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Phula Dei and another v. Dibakar Mohapatra and others, 1993 (II) OLR 505 wherein this Court has held that since notification under Section 3 of the Act was made in respect of the suit property during pendency of second appeal and the same was not brought to the notice of the Court, the decree is valid and is executable. Thus, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case as the suit in question was prior to the Section 3 (1) notification. 4. Learned Counsel in W.P. (C) No.164 of 2017 relies upon the case of Rabindra Sahu v. Suresh Ch. Nayak and others, 2002 (II) OLR 198 wherein the scope and ambit of Section 51 of the Act has been considered and this Court has observed that when the suit is for declaration of title, possession, correction of ROR and for permanent injunction as the consolidation authorities do not have jurisdiction to pass appropriate order for correction of ROR and for perpetual injunction, the civil suit will not be hit by Section 51 of the Act. Hence, the ratio decided in Rabindra Sahu (supra) is also not applicable to the present case. 5. It is absolutely clear from a plain reading of Section 51 of the Act that all questions relating to right, title, interest, and liability in land lying in 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 no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matters, which can officer or authority empowered under the Act is competent to decide. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise decree passed in the T.S. No.48 of 1992 as referred to in the preceding paragraph do not have any binding effect as the Subordinate Judge do not have jurisdiction to decide. 6. In that view of the matter, the only point of contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the cases are not acceptable. The judgment rendered by the learned Commissioner is legal. It does not require any interference of this Court. Accordingly, both the writ applications are dismissed being devoid of merit. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. Applications dismissed.