Civil Court can review procedural irregularities in tenure matters unless barred by specific statutory provisions, impacting tenant rights and land ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is a defendant’s appeal against a reversing judgment. The judgment passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bhadrak in Title Suit No.337 of 1990-I on 22.04.1997 followed by decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs was reversed by judgment passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak on 28.10.1999 followed by decree in Title Appeal No.32 of 1997.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for declaration that defendants have no manner of right, title, interest over the same, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession, if found dispossessed, and for declaration that the Tenant Ledger (TL) and MS ROR as wrong and for declaration that the suo motu case and mutation case in respect of the suit land is illegal, void and not acted upon along with permanent injunction.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that the suit Khata being CS Khata No.56 was recorded in the name of Jagannath Mahaprabhu and Hemayat Alli Sa with Gajendra Naik, Pranakrushna Naik and Mahendra Nayak as marfartdars. Both Hemayat Alli and Jagannath Mahaprabhu had half share each. In an amicable partition, the suit land fell to the share of Hemayat Alli and while possessing the same, he transferred C.S. Plot No. 1086 measuring Ac.0.01 decs. along with other disputed lands to Gulfat Bibi and deceased plaintiff No.4 on 08.08.1931 by a registered permanent lease deed and delivered possession. On 06.08.1931, Hemayat Alli also transferred CS Plot No. 1085 measuring Ac.0.05 dec. along with other disputed lands to the father of plaintiff No.2 and delivered possession. Plaintiff No.4 had got half share in CS Plot No.1086. Gulfat Bibi gifted away her half share of CS Plot No. 1086 along with other disputed land to plaintiff No.1 by a registered gift deed dated 26.02.1965 and delivered possession. One Sk. Reheman was possessing CS Plot No.1085 and after him, plaintiff No.2 being his son, possessed the same. The deceased plaintiff No.4, Sk. Rehaman and Gulfat Bibi constructed a house over the suit land and paid rent to the ex-landlord, which was subsequently demolished. The daughters of Hemayat Alli are paradanashin ladies and Sk. Rehaman was an illiterate man. On the other hand, Gulam Nabi and defendant No.1- Sk. Idrish are clever persons and after death of Hemayat Alli and abolition of estate, Gulam Nabi managed to prepare Tenant Ledger (TL) and also paid rent. According to plaintiffs, no enquiry was conducted as per law before preparation of TL. Gulam Nabi could not have acquired title by virtue of TL. Further, no enquiry was made before preparation of MS ROR for which Gulam Nabi and defendant No.1 managed to record their names in respect of CS Plot No. 1085 by influencing the authorities while CS Plot No. 1086 was recorded as ‘Abadajogya Anabadi’. Since defendant No.1 created disturbance over the suit land by disclosing that TL and MS ROR had been prepared in his name, a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was initiated. In course of such proceeding, defendant No.1 disclosed about a suo motu case bearing No. 21/1 of 1983 being initiated by Tahasildar, Chandbali and Mutation Case No.21/87 whereby, the suit land had been recorded in his name which, according to the plaintiff, is void as no notice was ever served on them nor any spot enquiry was made. The sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 is void and n