JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K.RATH, J. 1. This is a defendants’ appeal against confirming judgment. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed O.S.No.100 of 82-I in the court of the learned Additional Munsif, Balasore for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Basanta Kumar Nanda was the recorded owner of the suit land. The suit land fell to the share of Basanta Kumar Nanda in a partition. The land was settled in his name by the O.E.A. Collector. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land from him by means of two registered sale deeds dated 1.2.82 and 4.3.82 respectively. On 20.6.82 the defendants threatened to encroach upon the suit land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. The defendants entered contest and filed written statement stating inter alia that the suit for permanent injunction without any consequential relief is not maintainable. The suit properties as described in lot no.2 of ‘Ka’ schedule are unspecific. In consolidation operation, the properties had been recorded in favour of the respective parties. The suit properties were recorded in the name of Budhi Jagulai Thakurani in the year 1930 settlement operation. In M.S. the same had been recorded in the names of Purastam and others under “Bebondabasti” status. The suit is not maintainable in absence of the persons recorded in the M.S. R.O.R. Partition of the properties between Basanta Kumar Nanda and his co-sharers is false. The ‘ka’ schedule property was not allotted to Basanta Kumar Nanda. They denied settlement of the suit land in O.E.A. proceeding in favour of Basanta Kumar Nanda. In Sabak Settlement the suit land was recorded as Puruna Padia. Khetra Bal, father of defendant no.1 and defendant no.8 had obtained patta on 18.1.43 in respect of A0.14 dec. of land from ex-Zamindar. Similarly Juja Behera, Kusa Behera, Sankar Behera and Naba Behera had obtained patta on 18.1.43 in respect of A0.10 dec. of land. Kasturi Bal and Ananda Bal, father of defendants no.2 and 3 had obtained patta on 19.5.53 in respect of A0.02 dec. of land from the ex- Zamindar. The lessees are in possession of their respective lands. They used to pay rent. In R.F.Case No.541 of 1983, A0.02 dec. of land had been settled in favour of defendant no.2 and brother of defendant no.3. In rent fixation case, rent had been fixed in respect of A0.10 dec. of land from the ex- Zamindar. The lessees are in possession of their respective lands. They used to pay rent. In R.F.Case No.541 of 1983, A0.02 dec. of land had been settled in favour of defendant no.2 and brother of defendant no.3. In rent fixation case, rent had been fixed in respect of A0.10 dec. of land and rent schedule had been granted to the defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 and 8 purchased A0.03¾ dec. of land from Basanta Kumar Nanda by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.2.82. In the consolidation operation, A0.14 dec. of land had been recorded in the name of defendant no.1, A0.02 dec. of land had been recorded in the names of defendants 2 and 3, A0.09 dec. of land had been recorded in the names of defendants 4 and 7 and A0.03¾ dec. of land had been recorded in the names of defendants as A0.04 dec. No public notice had been issued before settlement of the land in favour of Basanta Kumar Nanda. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues. Both parties led evidence. The learned trial court came to hold that when the consolidation operation was going on in the area, where the suit land falls, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs are the earlier purchasers of the suit land and they are in possession of the same. Held so, it decreed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendants filed M.A.No.31 of 1988-I in the court of the learned District Judge, Balasore. The learned appellate court held that the defendants purchased a portion of the suit land measuring A0.03¼ dec. from Basanta Kumar Nanda. Thereafter the same was sold to the plaintiffs. There was no sale deed in favour of the defendants. Rent settlement was prepared in the year 1980 in the name of Basanta Kumar Nanda in respect of A0.40 dec. out of A0.65 dec. of the land. A0.40¼ dec. of land was sold to the plaintiffs. The vendor does not have any title to alienate the same in favour of the defendants. Rent settlement was prepared in the year 1980 in the name of Basanta Kumar Nanda in respect of A0.40 dec. out of A0.65 dec. of the land. A0.40¼ dec. of land was sold to the plaintiffs. The vendor does not have any title to alienate the same in favour of the defendants. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for permanent injunction, notwithstanding the bar contained in Secs.4 & 51 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (“OCH & PFL Act”). Held so, it dismissed the appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “Whether the courts below were justified in ignoring the order of the consolidation authorities on the ground that the original sale deed has not been produced and whether the learned courts below committed an error of record with regard to production of sale deed and whether the findings arrived at by them can at all be sustainable in law.” 6. Mr.Alok Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned courts below have committed a manifest illegality in holding that the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs were earlier in time than the defendants. Learned appellate court has not considered Ext.4. Non-consideration of Ext.4 vitiates the judgment. It was further submitted that the courts below have committed error in holding that the plaintiffs purchased A0.40¼ dec. appertaining to plot no.1279, whereas Basanta Kumar Nanda (original owner) sold in all A0.23¼ out of his interest of A0.40 dec. in respect of that plot. The original owner had share in plot no.1279 to the extent of A0.40 dec. out of A0.65 dec. He had sold only A0.10 dec. of land from the eastern side to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 1.2.1982 specifying boundaries. He had title to the extent of A0.30 dec. and sold A0.03 ¾ dec. from the southern side specifying boundaries to the defendants by a registered sale deed dated 16.2.82. The original owner had admitted that there was no partition between him and his co-sharers by metes and bounds. The rent schedule in respect of khata no.383,vide Ext.3, does not reveal which side of plot no.1279 had been settled in favour of him. No map was prepared in respect of the area. The original owner had admitted that there was no partition between him and his co-sharers by metes and bounds. The rent schedule in respect of khata no.383,vide Ext.3, does not reveal which side of plot no.1279 had been settled in favour of him. No map was prepared in respect of the area. It was further submitted that the findings of the courts that the sale deeds, Exts. 1 and 2, in favour of the plaintiffs were prior to the purchase of the defendants is perverse. The entire A0.40 dec. of land is covered under Exts.1 and 2. The courts below acted on a wrong assumption that the suit land only appertains to plot no.1279. The plaint schedule includes two lots. Lot no.1 relates to khata no.385 plot no.1450 A0,09 dec. Lot no.2 relates to khata no.383 plot no.1279 A0.65 dec. In Objection Case No.547 of 1984, right, title and interest of the appellants had been declared on contest in respect of their purchased lands by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16.2.82 and, accordingly patta had been granted. Since title of the plaintiffs is in dispute, simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. 7. Per contra, Mr.Swarup Kumar Pattnaik, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that Basanta Kumar Nanda was the recorded tenant of the suit land. The area was reduced to A0.04 dec. The suit land was settled in favour of Basanta Kumar Nanda by the O.E.A. Collector in a proceeding under Secs. 6 & 7 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (“O.E.A. Act”). To press his legal necessity, he sold the same to the plaintiffs by means of two registered sale deeds dated 1.2.82 and 4.3.83, vide Exts.1 and 2 respectively. The defendants have no right, title and interest over the same. Both the courts held that the plaintiffs have title over the suit property. Thus, suit for permanent injunction is maintainable. The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to ignore the settlement made by the O.E.A. Collector. 8. The Full Bench of this Court in Duruju Mallik @ Duryodhan Swain Vrs. Krupasindhu Swain, 58 (1984) C.L.T.359 (F.B.) held: “It is well known that a party cannot be non-suited when under the law he does not have any alternative forum for the redressal of his grievances. 8. The Full Bench of this Court in Duruju Mallik @ Duryodhan Swain Vrs. Krupasindhu Swain, 58 (1984) C.L.T.359 (F.B.) held: “It is well known that a party cannot be non-suited when under the law he does not have any alternative forum for the redressal of his grievances. When his rights are of civil nature, the reliefs which flow from such rights and which he is entitled to get should be available from the Civil Court where the officer or authority has not been empowered to grant the same. In view of that has been discussed above, we agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Rahas Bewa v. Kanduri Chanran Sutar and others (supra) that it becomes difficult to accept the submission that a suit for permanent injunction pending at common law shall stand abated as a result of the notification under the Orissa Act 21 of 1972 even though the relief of injunction is not available under the Act. Thus where the grant of injunction depends upon the determination of the right or interest in any land situated within the consolidation area, the suit for permanent injunction may not be maintainable. In order to determine whether the suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable or not, the substance of the pleadings has to be looked into and not merely the form of pleadings of the plaintiff alone or the prayer made by him. Each case is to be decided in the facts of its own.” (Emphasis laid) 9. Notwithstanding with the bar contained in Sec.51 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable. But then where the grant of injunction depends upon the determination of the right or interest in any land situated within the consolidation area, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. 10. On a cursory perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the present dispute requires determination of the right, title and interest of the parties over the suit property. Since consolidation operation in the area, where the land falls stated, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit for permanent injunction. 10. On a cursory perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the present dispute requires determination of the right, title and interest of the parties over the suit property. Since consolidation operation in the area, where the land falls stated, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit for permanent injunction. Though the learned trial court held that “under Section 4(4) of O.C.H. P.F.L.Act, 1972, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is abated in order to decide right, title, interest over the suit land. Moreover when the consolidation operation is still going on, it is not the work of the Civil Court to order upon the right, title, interest of the suit land”, but then it proceeded to decide right, title, interest of the parties and decreed the suit. The judgment suffers from internal inconsistencies. Both the courts below did not delve into the matter and brush aside the law laid down in Duruju Mallik @ Duryodhan Swain (supra). 11. As a sequel to the above discussion, the judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside. Consequently, the suit is dismissed. The appeal is allowed. No costs.