The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the OCH & PFL Act, particularly Section 4(4) and Section 51, and the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC IV, Cuttack in RFA No. 128 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), 2nd Court, Cuttack in T.S 173/01 (196/87).

The appellants as the plaintiffs filed the above noted suit against the respondent-defendants for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit property better described in schedule appended to the plaint with further reliefs of cancellation of orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Deputy Director, Commissioner, Consolidation as null and void being without jurisdiction. The suit having been dismissed, these appellants being the unsuccessful plaintiffs have carried an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower appellate court having declined to set aside the findings of the trial court as also the order of dismissal of the suit, the present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

3. The plaintiffs’ case is that the suit land which in total measures Ac.0.89 decimals comprising of 13 plots form part of the land recorded under Sabik Plot No. 249/5 of Mouza Bamburi in total measuring Ac.1.04.05 links which was originally recorded in the name of husband of one Chanchali Bewa who happens to be the mother of original defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the settlement of the year 1930. Said husband of Chanchali Bewa was the owner in possession of the suit land being a tenant under Sidheswarpur Estate. Since Chanchali Bewa did not pay the rent, the landlord of the Estate had filed a rent suit against her and had obtained a decree for realization of arrear rent. The rent being not deposited, in Execution Case No. 104 of 1960-61, the total lands measuring Ac.1.04 decimals under possession of Chanchali Bewa were put to auction by the Revenue Court by observing all formalities. It is said that one Pravakar Khuntia purchased the same being the highest bidder in the said auction and accordingly had taken delivery of possession of the suit land through court and as such remained in possession as its owner. It is next stated that on 6.10.1961 said Pravakar for legal necessity had sold the land to one Maheswar Naik for consideration of Rs.170/-by executing a registered sale deed followed by delivery of possession of the said land. This Chanchali then being instigated by her co-villagers filed a petition in the Execution Case to declare the said auction sale null and void resorting to provision of Order 29 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition stood dismissed. It was challenged before the ADM, Cuttack in Revision Case No. 13 of 1968 and then also further challenged which went in vain. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the said land from said Maheswar Naik on 1.7.1968 and being delivered with the possession of the said lands have continued to remain in possession having the right, title and interest by going on paying the rent etc. It is further stated that Chanchali Bewa in another Revision Case No. 7 of 1971 somehow got a favourable order of the remand of the matter to the Revenue Court but by that time the Revenue Court being abolished, Tahasildar, Cuttack had been empowered to adjudicate the matter cognizable by the Revenue Court. As no further step was taken in the said case, the matter did not proceed and finally Chanchali Bewa died in the year 1974. Thereafter, when consolidation operation began, the daughters of Chanchali Bewa filed Consolidation Cases. Though all the materials including the record of rights in the name of the plaintiffs as well as their vendor and the rent receipts were placed in support of continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land for more than 12 years, the Consolidat