The judgment establishes that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits involving fraud in obtaining orders from consolidation authorities, particularly after the closure of consolidation operations.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

1. This petition challenges the order dated 04.04.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in C.S. No. 451 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the trial court rejected the application of the defendants-petitioners under Order-7 Rule-11 CPC to reject the plaint.

2. Plaintiffs-Opposite party nos. 1 to 46 instituted the suit for declaration of title, that the sale-deed dated 24.7.2010 is illegal and void, that the remand order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack, in R.C. No. 1466 of 2000 is without jurisdiction and consequently the order passed by the C.O. Nimapara dated 31.12.2005 and the order dated 29.10.2007, passed by the Additional Tahasidlar, Pipili, in Mutation Case No. 3015 of 2007 are illegal and permanent injunction impleading the petitioners and opposite party no. 47 as defendant nos. 1 to 3.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that Schedule-A to L property originally belonged to ancestors of Brajaballav Satapathy and others. To press their legal necessity, they sold the land on 31.1.1958 to the bhag tenants by means of different registered sale-deeds. Father of defendant no. 3 was an attesting witness to the sale-deeds along with other co-sharers. Possession was delivered to the vendees. The ROR has been published in the name of the vendees in the year 1966. During the consolidation operation, Record of Right has been published in the year 1994 in the name of the vendees or their legal heirs in case of death of any of the vendees. The plaintiffs are in possession of the land from the time of their ancestors. Long after publication of the consolidation ROR, defendant no. 3 filed Revision Case No. 1466 of 2000 before the Director, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack, under Section 37(2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (OCH & PFL Act) without impleading all the plaintiffs. No notice was issued to the plaintiffs. By order dated 03.02.2004, the Director, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack, remanded the matter to the C.O. Nimapara. On the basis of a false report submitted by the process server, the defendant no. 3, by playing fraud on the court, had managed to set aside the consolidation ROR. Defendant no. 3 had also deliberately suppressed the sale-deeds as well as the settlement ROR of the year 1966. Pursuant to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, defendant no. 3 filed Mutation Case No. 3115 of 2002 before the Additional Tahasildar, Pipili. The petition was allowed on 29.10.2007. Orders passed by the Director, C.O. as well as Additional Tahasildar are illegal and void. Thereafter, defendant no. 3 executed registered sale-deed in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 on 26.7.2010. No consideration was passed, nor possession of the land has been delivered to the petitioners. The sale-deed has not been acted upon. Thereafter, defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed Mutation Case No. 2289 of 2011. The petition was allowed. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 along with other persons have threatened the plaintiffs to surrender possession. With the factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

4. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint stating inter alia that the subject matter of dispute was before the Consolidation Authority. The plaintiffs were aware of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Being aggrieved, they preferred Consolidation Appeal No. 52 of 2006 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, to set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer in Remand Revision Petition No. 1466 of 2000. During pendency of the appeal, the defendant no. 3 sold the suit land to them by means of registered sale-deeds dated 24.7.2010. Thereafter, they filed mutation case. The Consolidation Authority has been vested with ample power to set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue.