1992 Supreme(Ori) 236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Rath, K.C. Jagadeb Roy, JJ.
BHASKAR SWAIN AND SANATAN KHATEI AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. Nos. 671 and 672 of 1985
Decided On : 15-05-1992

The decision of the O.E.A. Collector in a proceeding under Section 7 of the O.E.A. Act, settling the lands with the opp. party No. 4 as the intermediary, was a decision on a primary fact vis-a-vis the right of the occupancy tenant and could not be taken to be conclusive of his right.

Headnote:

CONSOLIDATION ACT - SECTION 51 - INTERPRETATION - JURISDICTION OF CONSOLIDATION AUTHORITIES TO RE-OPEN AND DECIDE QUESTIONS RELATING TO RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST AND LIABILITY IN LAND LYING WITHIN THE CONSOLIDATION AREA WHEN DECISION REGARDING SUCH ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN REACHED BY COMPETENT REVENUE COURTS OR AUTHORITIES UNDER ANY LOCAL LAW PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSOLIDATION OPERATION.

Fact of the Case:

In two separate consolidation proceedings, the petitioners, who were occupancy tenants on the disputed lands, challenged the preparation of the record-of-rights in favor of the opp. party No. 4, who had been settled with the lands as an intermediary under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (O.E.A. Act). The Consolidation Officer rejected the petitioners' objections, holding that he was bound by the decision of the O.E.A. Collector. On appeal, the Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the Consolidation Officer's decision, holding that the provisions of the proviso to Section 8-A(2) of the O.E.A. Act had not been complied with. The Commissioner of Consolidation (opp. party No. 1) set aside the appellate authority's orders and confirmed that of the Consolidation Officer.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 51(1) of the Consolidation Act vests jurisdiction in the consolidation authorities to decide questions relating to right, title, interest, and liability in land lying within the consolidation area, except those coming within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law for the time being in force. The exception to the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities operates only when such questions are simultaneously also within the cognizance of the Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law. The Court further held that the decision of the O.E.A. Collector in a proceeding under Section 7 of the O.E.A. Act, settling the lands with the opp. party No. 4 as the intermediary, was a decision on a primary fact vis-a-vis the right of the occupancy tenant and could not be taken to be conclusive of his right. The Court also held that the exception under Section 51(1) of the Consolidation Act was intended to grant finality to the decision of the O.E.A. Collector even on such primary fact.

Issues: 1. Whether the consolidation authorities can re-open and decide questions relating to right, title, interest, and liability in land lying within the consolidation area when a decision regarding such issues has already been reached by competent Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law prior to the commencement of consolidation operation? 2. Whether the decision of the O.E.A. Collector in a proceeding under Section 7 of the O.E.A. Act, settling the lands with the opp. party No. 4 as the intermediary, was a decision on a primary fact vis-a-vis the right of the occupancy tenant and could be taken to be conclusive of his right?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 51(1) of the Consolidation Act and held that the exception to the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities operates only when the questions relating to right, title, interest, and liability in land are simultaneously also within the cognizance of the Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law. The Court reasoned that the scheme of the Act was to provide finality to the decisions of the Revenue Courts or authorities under local law and to avoid conflict of jurisdictions between different Revenue Courts or authorities under local law. 2. The Court held that the decision of the O.E.A. Collector in a proceeding under Section 7 of the O.E.A. Act, settling the lands with the opp. party No. 4 as the intermediary, was a decision on a primary fact vis-a-vis the right of the occupancy tenant and could not be taken to be conclusive of his right. The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Krupasindhu Misra and Another Vs. Gobinda Chandra Misra and Others, which held that the interest of a raiyat was not touched by the O.E.A. Act and that even if a settlement had been made by the Collector under Chapter II, it would in no way affect the right of an occupancy raiyat on the land.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the consolidation authorities did not have jurisdiction to re-open and decide questions relating to right, title, interest, and liability in land lying within the consolidation area when a decision regarding such issues had already been reached by competent Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law prior to the commencement of consolidation operation.