Record of Rights-It is were settled that although entry in the record of rights prepared under the respective tenancy law is conclusion proof of correctness of entry it has only presumption evidentiary value which can be rebutted in Civil Courts-It is also well settled that the entries in the record of rights do neither create nor extinguish one's right, title and interest in the land. (Para 27)

Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956-Section 37-Suits based on title challenging the correctness of entry in the register of lands under the Consolidation Act are not barred in Civil Courts. (Para 42)

1997(1) All PLR 302-Appoved.

AIR 1930 PC 54, AIR 1953 SC 244, AIR 1958 SC 687, AIR 1959 SC 352, AIR 1962 SC 663, AIR 1973 SC 457, 1985 PLJR 76, 1999 BBCJ 722, 1979 BBCJ 735, 1950 BBCJ 191, 1986 BBCJ 343, 1980 BBCJ 544, 1979 BBCJ 566-Ref.

1989 PLJR 1203 (FB); AIR 1960 SC 936 - Relied.

Per Nagendra Rai, J.

The consolidation authorities have power to decide the question of title and the decision rendered by them on the question of title is final and the same cannot be challenged in a Civil Court in view of specific provision contained in section 37 of the Act-It is clarified that such orders passed or recorded without complying with the provisions of the Act or against the fundamental principles of Judicial procedure or obtained by fraud is amenable to the jurisdiction of Civil Court. (Para 39)

AIR 1979 Pat 250, 1985 PLJR 86 (FB), (1859)6 CB (NS) 336, AIR 1940 PC 105, AIR 1960 SC 796, AIR 1969 SC 78, AIR 1977 SC 3082, AIR 1953 SC 244, 1952 AC 109, AIR 1991 SC 672, AIR 1990 SC 261, AIR 1991 SC 249-Relied.

1989 PLJR 1203 (FB)-1974 PLJR 27 (FB)-Dist.

Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956-Section 37B-Consolidation authorities have been conferred with the power of Civil Court or the competent Court so that the judgment/ order rendered by them will have the same effect as the court of Competent Jurisdiction-Such proceeding in Civil Court will operate as resjudicata. (Paras 15 & 27)

Agreed with the reasonings of S.N. Jha, J. that the question of title cannot be decided by the consolidation court and as such a suit in Civil Court is maintainable. (Para 27)

Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956-Section 37B-Consolidation authorities have been conferred with the status of "deemed Courts" -In the strict sense of the term it cannot be said to be court rather they are tribunals. (Paras 30, 35)

Interpretation of Statutes-A statute is an edict of the legislature-The legislature enacts law with certain purpose-The purpose may be either to control certain public evil or to effect beneficial policies-While interpreting a provision, the Court has to see the effect of the plain meaning. (Para 26)

Precedents-Judicial consistency is not the highest state of legal bliss Law must grow-It cannot afford to be '"static and therefore Judges ought to imply an intelligent technique in use of precedent-:-Precedents should be stepping stones and not halting places. (Para 31)

AIR 1976 SC 1441-Relied.

Precedents-Certainty is the necessity of law, that would disappear if judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruling one another's decision-In a multi-Judge Court, he Judges are bound by precedents and procedure. (Paras 32 & 33)

JUDGMENT

S.N. JHA, J.:- This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 27th September 1996 passed by the 4th Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, in title Suit NO.37 of 1995 by which the suit has been abated under section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short 'the Consolidation Act').

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for declaration of his exclusive title over the suit land comprising of R.S. plot no. 1617 situate at Mokar in the district of Sasaram. His case is that the suit land along with other lands was settled with him by the ex-lan