The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit for permanent injunction and damages arising out of the illegal acts of the defendants in respect of suit lands within the area covered by the consolidation proceedings is not ousted by the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.

S. ACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of the order dated 5-12-1977 of the Munsif, Puri in original Suit No. 179 of 1976-1. By the impugned order the court below has decided that the suit has abated under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (Orissa Act 21 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), as the area comprising the suit lands has come under the Consolidation Proceedings.

( 2 ) THE reliefs prayed for in this suit are; (i) realisation of damages caused to the plaintiff due to the unlawful trespass and illegal acts of the defendants on the suit land; (ii) restraining the defendants by a permanent injunction not to commit any further act of damages or to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit lands; and (iii) for other consequential reliefs.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the prayer for permanent injunction or the interlocutory injunction which has already been granted in the suit, and the prayer for recovery of damages for the illegal acts of the defendants on the suit lands are not matters within the purview of the powers of the Consolidation Officers, and Sections 4 and 51 (2) of the Act have no application to suits asking for such reliefs. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, however states that in suits for permanent injunction and for recovery of damages from the defendants for their alleged illegal acts, the court will have to necessarily adjudicate upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land, which matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer and hence the civil court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain such suits, and such suits already instituted shall abate or stand terminated in their entirety under Sections 51 (2) and 4 (4) of the Act and interlocutory orders passed in such suits shall be of no effect or force.

( 4 ) THE jurisdiction of Civil Court to try cases of civil nature is not excluded unless cognizance of the entire suit is barred either expressly or impliedly. Statutes ousting the jurisdiction of the civil courts must be very strictly construed, and every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and exclusion of its jurisdiction is not be readily inferred unless the exclusion is either explicitly expressed or clearly implied Sub-section (4) of Section 4 provides that:--

"every suit and proceedings for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area in regard to which proceeding could be or ought to be started under this Act, which is pending before any Civil Court, whether of the first instance or appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court before which such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated: Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . "

Section 51 of the Act provides:-

"notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions contained in Sub-section (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 proceeding in respect of any matter which an officer or authority empowered under this Act is competent to decide. "

These are the only two relevant provisions in the Act and which apply to this case.

( 5 ) A suit with a prayer for permanent or interlocutory injunction restraining any person from causing any damage to or illegal acts on the property belonging to or in the possession of another and/or for realisation of damages on that acco