The civil court has jurisdiction to examine cases where statutory tribunals have not acted in conformity with judicial procedure, and the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.Rath, J

Defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

2. Plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 3 instituted a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiffs was that Ananta Senapati, father of defendant no.1, was the chowkidar of the village. The suit land was recorded in his name. He was in possession of the suit land. In Chowkidari Case No.327 of 1965-66, the land was settled in favour of defendant no.1 under the Odisha Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, 1964 (in short, “Act, 1964”). Defendant no.1 used to pay rent. To press his legal necessity, he wanted to sell the land. Defendant no.1 belongs to Schedule Caste. He applied for permission to sell the land under the provision of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short “OLR Act”) before the S.D.O., Nayagarh, which was registered as Revenue Misc. Case No.401 of 1978. Permission was accorded to him to sell the suit land and other lands. After obtaining permission, he sold the suit land to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.5000/-by means of a registered sale deed dated 2.12.1978. Delivery of possession was made to him. The plaintiffs acquired title over the suit land. They used to raise paddy crops on the land. Defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. Defendants 2 to 4 instituted Title Suit No.20/3 of 1972/71 in the court of the learned Munsif, Nayagarh against defendant no.1 for specific performance of contract. The suit was dismissed. They filed Title Appeal No.16 of 1972 before the learned Sub-Judge, Nayagarh, which met with the same fate. The matter was carried to this Court in Second Appeal No.161 of 1977. The appeal was eventually dismissed. Defendant nos.2 to 4 had failed in their attempt to forcibly occupy the suit land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit.

3. Defendants 2 to 4 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants was that the suit properties mentioned in Schedule-A was originally Chaukidari Jagiri lands. Defendant no.1 was the village chaukidar. Defendant nos.2 to 4 are in possession of the suit land. Defendant no.1 filed Chaukidari Case No.327 of 1965-66 for settlement of the land. The Tahasildar settled the suit properties in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2. Patta was issued in their favour. Defendant no.2 was in cultivating possession of the suit land. Defendant no.1 filed two petitions before S.D.O., Nayagarh for permission to sell the suit land. After obtaining permission, he sold Ac.0.18 dec. of land on 07.04.1970 and executed registered sale deed on 23.06.1970 in favour of defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 also entered into an agreement for sale with defendant no.2 to alienate Ac.0.30 decimals of land along with Ac.0.18 dec. Consideration was fixed at Rs.624/-. Defendant no.1 received Rs.550/-in advance. It was agreed upon that the balance consideration would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. After obtaining permission, defendant no.1 demanded higher consideration. The consideration in respect of Ac.0.18 dec. of land was fixed at Rs.1000/-. Rs.550/-was paid in advance. It was agreed upon that the balance of Rs.450/-would be paid at the time of registration. Defendant no.1 agreed to sell the land mentioned in Schedule-B to defendant nos. 2 to 4 and entered into an agreement for sale on 05.10.1970 for a consideration of Rs.1500/-. Out of the said amount, he received Rs.1200/-as advance and agreed to take balance consideration after obtaining permission and would execute the registered sale deed in favour of defendant nos.2 to 4. Defendant no.1 did not execute the sale deed even after obtaining permission. Defendant no.1 before obtaining permission from the S.D.O. to sale Schedule-B property executed a registered sale deed in favour of Aseli Dei on 22.02.1968 in respect of the land described in Schedule-C. No consideration was paid. No permission was obt