Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.
Ram Balak Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar and Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1627 of 2016
Decided On : 01-05-2024
(A) Property Law – Title and Possession – Consolidation authorities have powers of Civil Court to decide question of title subject to judicial review by Supreme Court and High Court under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of Constitution of India – Revenue entries are not documents of title and do not ordinarily confer or extinguish title in land but, nonetheless, where revenue authorities or consolidation authorities are competent to determine rights of parties by exercising powers akin to Civil Courts, any order or entry made by such authorities which attains finality has to be respected and given effect to. (Paras 15 and 16)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Sections 10(B) and 37 – Suit for possession and confirmation of possession over suit land – Appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff – State of Bihar at no point of time came forward to claim right, title or interest of disputed land before any forum either consolidation authorities or Civil Court, rather forced plaintiff-appellant to institute civil suit despite recognition of his rights by consolidation authorities – Cause of action in the suit was a fresh cause of action arising after closure of consolidation proceedings – When rights of plaintiff-appellant have been determined and recognised by consolidation authorities, order of Consolidation Officer to that effect in favour of plaintiff-appellant could not have been ignored by Civil Court – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of rights determined by Consolidation Officer stands impliedly excluded by very scheme of Consolidation Act – Civil Court is prohibited from entertaining any suit to vary or set aside any decision or order of Consolidation Court passed under the Act in respect of matter for which proceedings could have or ought to have been taken under Consolidation Act – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court imposed by Section 37 is not applicable to present suit which is a simpliciter for declaration of his rights over suit land on the basis of order of Consolidation Court – Civil Court is not competent to either ignore or reverse order passed by Consolidation Officer once it has attained finality – Impugned judgment and orders of appellate courts set aside and that of court of first instance restored – Suit of plaintiff-appellant stands decreed. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
This is plaintiff’s appeal arising out of a suit for possession and confirmation of his possession over the suit land which was decreed in his favour by the court of first instance but decree was set aside in First Appeal and was affirmed by High Court.
Findings of Court:
Appellate courts below completely fell in error in holding otherwise discarding the order of Consolidation Officer which was sacrosanct as to the rights in respect to the suit land.
Result : Appeal allowed.
1. This is plaintiff’s appeal arising out of a suit for possession and confirmation of his 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.
2. The dispute in the suit is regarding 0.32 decimal of land of R.S.P. No.821 situate in village Kishanpur, district Sitamarhi, Bihar. This area of land was carved out from C.S.P. No.332 of Khata No.196 which belonged to Rambati Kuwer, the ex-landlord.
3. The aforesaid ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer settled the above area of the suit land in favour of Makhan Singh, son of late Ram Govind Singh vide lease deed (patta) of 1341 fasli whereupon the said Makhan Singh continued in possession of it during his lifetime. The said Makhan Singh had no issue. It is alleged that he adopted plaintiff-appellant who inherited the suit land after Makhan Singh. Accordingly, plaintiff-appellant is presently in possession of the suit land which had been in his family’s possession ever since it was settled by ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer in favour of Makhan Singh.
4. It so happened that the village was brought under consolidation in accordance with the Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 19561[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation Act’].
5. Since the aforesaid land was incorrectly recorded in the name of the State, the plaintiff-appellant in accordance with Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act applied for the correction of revenue/consolidation records. The Consolidation Officer, Bathnaha upon following the due process of law vide its order dated 12.11.1979, directed for the correction of the record-of-rights. The name of the plaintiff-appellant was directed to be recorded in respect of 0.32 decimal area of land of R.S.P. No.821. The aforesaid order was duly implemented and the name of the plaintiff-appellant was entered into the record-of-rights. The aforesaid order is final and conclusive. It was not challenged by any party, not even by the State of Bihar in any higher forum.
6. Subsequently, the State Authorities started claiming the entire land of 4 acre 58 decimal of C.S.P. No.332 as jalkar (pond land) which included the suit land also and thus allegedly started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant having no other option after service of notice dated 09.09.2004 as contemplated by Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, instituted the Suit No.103/2004 ‘Ram Balak Singh, s/o late Makhan Singh vs. State of Bihar and Anr.’ for declaring his title over the suit land as described in Schedule-A to the plaint and to confirm his possession over it.
7. The aforesaid suit was instituted on the allegations as narrated above that the suit land belonged to Rambati Kuwer, the ex-landlord, who settled it in favour of Makhan Singh in 1341 fasli. The plaintiff-appellant is the adopted son of the said Makhan Singh and as such succeeded to the said land. During the consolidation proceedings on petitions/objections under Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act, the Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 12.11.1979 ruled in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and directed his name to be recorded in the record-of-rights which order attained finality and has been implemented. Therefore, the State has no right, title or jurisdiction over the suit land which is in possession of the plaintiff-appellant.
8. The summons of the suit were received by the officers of the State but on their behalf no written statement was filed to controvert the plaint allegations despite several opportunities. Lastly on 04.02.2006, the right of the State to file written statement was closed and the suit was fixed for hearing under Order VIII Rule X of Code of Civil Procedure. Since the plaint allegations were not controverted, no issue actually arose between the parties for determination, nonetheless, the trial court after formulating the point of d
(1) Revenue entries are not documents of title and do not ordinarily confer or extinguish title in land but, nonetheless, where revenue authorities or consolidation authorities are competent to deter....
Civil Courts may not interfere with consolidation records unless significant arbitrariness is demonstrated; judicial procedures must be adhered to diligently.
Consolidation authorities' records establish title and possession, superseding claims of adverse possession, which indirectly acknowledge the opposing party's title, rendering simultaneous inconsiste....
Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over ownership disputes despite statutory provisions barring such jurisdiction in consolidation schemes unless expressly excluded.
The court affirmed that disputes regarding consolidation schemes must be resolved through appellate remedies, and title disputes among estate holders are to be adjudicated by civil courts, not under ....
The suit was held to be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act as the disputed land was recorded as Navin Parti during consolidation operation and the plaintiff did not take any steps to correct th....
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
