The consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption if it arises ancillarily or incidentally for the adjudication of right, title, and interest in property.

JUDGMENT :

R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of the decision rendered by the Commissioner of Consolidation, by way of judicial review.

2. The petitioner is the son of original opposite party No. 5, brother of opposite parties 1 and 2 and the paternal uncle of opposit parties 3 and 4. During consolidation operation in village Arakhakud, a question arose as to who should be recorded in respect of the property left behind by Madan, the father of the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of opposite party No. S. As the name of the petitioner was omitted from the preliminary record, claim was made by him seeking, inclusion of his name as a joint owner with his brothers and nephews; Opposite parties 1 to 4 resisted the claim pleading adoption of the petitioner by Budha, brother of Madan. The Consolidation Officer (O P. No. 6) nagatived the claim of the petitioner sustaining the plea of adoption urged by opposite parties 1 to 4. In Consolidation Appeal No. 86 of. I98O carried by the petitioner, opposite party No. 7 accepted the plea of the petitioner, in revision carried by opposite parties 1 to 4, the Commissioner of Consolidation held that the question being one relating to status, the petitioner should get the same established in a competent Court, the consolidation: authority had no jurisdiction to alter the record prepared at a stage prior to the consolidation operation. He reversed the appellate decision.

3. The petitioner assails the order on two grounds : Firstly, the Comissioner has erred in law in refusing jurisdiction on the ground that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption as that related to status of a person and secondly, the Commissioner has failed to bear in mind the principle that the onus of proofs is on the person who seeks displacement of the natural order of succession by pleading adoption. Hence, as a matter of course, the name of the petitioner should have been recorded along with his brothers and nephews as successor of Madan. Opp. parties 1 to 4 should have been called upon to establish their case of adeption of the petitioner by Budha befere the Civil Court.

4. First contention:

The learned Corrmissioner relied upon upon certain observations made by this Court in Puni Bewa v. Ananta Sahoo 47(1979) C. L. T. 494, P. K. Motianty, J. observed in paragraph-7 :

"...the consolidation authorities have not been vested with power to give a declaration on status or to set aside the decree or order of a competent Court..."

The same learned Judge also observed in Pranabandhu ' Panu Ojha v. Bhikari Maharana ' Ojha 57(1984) CLT 65:

"The consolidation authorities exercise special jurisdiction conferred upon them by the statute. They are competent to adjudicate upon right or interest in land. The question of status of a person does not relate to any right or interest in land...The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption."

Following the aforesaid view, this Court in Krushna Chandra Nayak and Others Vs. Nisamani Bewa and Another observed :

"When the question of status is involved in this suit, the consolidation authorities could not have granted the relief claimed since the authorities under that Act have no jurisdiction to decide the status."

5. To set the sight clear, it is worthwhile to notice that in puni Bawa's case (supra), the relief of partition was based upon and to flow from two other specific reliefs which were sought, namely, (a) a declaration that defendant No, 1 therein was not the adopted son of one Kartik and (b) a declaration that order passed in a proceeding under the Orissa Reforms Act in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 therein was fraudulent, collusive and was not binding on the plaintiffs. Though the plaintiffs therefrom sought partition they also sought the reliefs by way of declaration as to status contemplated by Section 31 of the