Order Or Entry By Revenue Authorities Which Are Competent To Determine Rights Of Parties Must Be Respected & Given Effect To: SC
The Supreme Court observed that where revenue authorities are competent to determine the rights of parties by exercising powers alike Civil Courts, any order or entry which attains finality must be respected and given effect to.
The Court observed thus in a civil appeal arising out of a suit for possession and confirmation of possession over the suit land which was decreed in his favour by the court of first instance but the decree was set aside in First Appeal and was affirmed by the High Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “We are conscious of the fact that revenue entries are not documents of title and do not ordinarily confer or extinguish title in the land but, nonetheless, where the revenue authorities or the consolidation authorities are competent to determine the rights of the parties by exercising powers akin to the Civil Courts, any order or entry made by such authorities which attains finality has to be respected and given effect to.”
The Bench said that under the scheme of the Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Consolidation Act), the consolidation authorities are fully competent to deal with the issue of title over the land under consolidation except under certain contingencies and thus, the consolidation authorities have the powers of the Civil Court to decide the question of the title subject to the judicial review by the High Court under Articles 32, 226, and 227 of the Constitution.
Advocate Nandadevi Deka appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocate Suyash Vyash appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The dispute in the suit was regarding 0.32 decimal of land situated in Bihar and such area of land was carved out from Khata which belonged to the ex-landlord. The said landlord settled the said area of the suit land vide a lease deed in favour of a person named Makhan Singh whereupon he continued the possession and he had no issue. It was alleged that he adopted the appellant who inherited the suit land after him and hence he was in possession of the same. The village was brought under consolidation in accordance with the Consolidation Act. Since the suit land was incorrectly recorded in the name of the State, the appellant applied for the correction of revenue/consolidation records.
The Consolidation Officer directed for its correction and such order was duly implemented by entering the appellant’s name into the record-of-rights. Such order was final and not challenged by any party. Subsequently, the State authorities started claiming the entire land of 4 acre 58 decimal as jalkar (pond land) which included the suit land and thus allegedly started interfering in the appellant’s possession. Therefore, the appellant instituted the suit and the same was decreed. However, the First Appellate Court reversed it and its decision was upheld by the High Court. As a result, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “A bare reading of the provisions of the Consolidation Act would reveal that upon declaration of the State Government of its intention to bring about a scheme of Consolidation in the village(s) and till the close of the consolidation operation, the duty of preparing and maintaining the record of rights and the village maps of each village shall be performed by the Director of Consolidation and no suit or legal proceeding in respect of any land in such area(s) shall be entertained by any court. The Consolidation Act even prohibits the transfer by any person of land falling within the notified area without the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer during the consolidation operation. It further provides that no question in respect of any entry made in the map or register prepared in relation to the consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised before the consolidation authorities shall be permitted to be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceeding.”
The Court further said that the consolidation authorities have the status of the deemed courts and have the powers akin to the Civil Courts to decide the rights and title of the parties over the land under consolidation and, at the same time, oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
“The State of Bihar at no point of time came forward to claim the right, title or interest of disputed land before any forum either the consolidation authorities or the Civil Court, rather forced the plaintiff-appellant to institute the civil suit despite recognition of his rights by the consolidation authorities”, it also noted.
The Court observed that when the rights of the plaintiff-appellant have been determined and recognised by the consolidation authorities, the order of the Consolidation Officer to that effect in favour of the plaintiff-appellant could not have been ignored by the Civil Court.
“Insofar as, the bar of Civil Court imposed by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act is concerned, a plain reading of the said provision would reveal that the Civil Court is prohibited from entertaining any suit to vary or set aside any decision or order of the Consolidation Court passed under the Act in respect of the matter for which the proceedings could have or ought to have been taken under the Consolidation Act”, it added.
The Court concluded that the Civil Court is not competent to either ignore or reverse the order passed by the Consolidation Officer once it has attained finality.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, decreed the suit, and set aside the orders of appellate courts.
Cause Title- Ram Balak Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 360)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advocates Nandadevi Deka, Kwan Singhjaggi, Zain Haider, Vivek Singh, C.P. Rajwar, and Rohan Chandra.
Respondents: AOR Manish Kumar and Advocate Suyash Vyash.
