Civil courts can review statutory decisions where procedural irregularities, such as lack of notice, occur, reaffirming jurisdiction despite legislative bars.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The legal heirs of the original plaintiff in OS No.136/85-I of the Court of learned Munsif, Bhadrak are before this Court questioning the correctness of the judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in Title Appeal No.75/227 of 1986/87 on 27.03.1990 followed by decree, whereby the judgment dated 12.11.1986 passed by the Trial Court in the aforementioned suit followed by decree, was reversed.

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

3. The original plaintiff’s case is that the suit land originally belonged to the ex-landlord Habibur Reheman, who executed an unregistered lease deed in his favour on 13.06.1943 and delivered possession. Since then, the plaintiff paid rent to the ex-landlord and reclaimed the suit land. He grew paddy and other vegetables over the vacant land and also excavated a tank on a portion for pisciculture. He also constructed a farm house over the suit land. Being in possession for more than 40 years, he claims to have acquired occupancy right. After vesting of estates, the plaintiff paid rent to the State. Consolidation operation started in the year in the year 1979, wherein ROR was issued in his favour. In the meantime, the Tahasildar, Bhadrak (defendant No.2) being influenced by some persons, initiated OEA Case No. 1 of 1976 under Section 5(i) of the OEA Act. The legal heirs of the ex-landlord were not made parties. No opportunity of hearing was granted to him. In the final ROR, the lease was set aside and the right, title and interest of the plaintiff was extinguished. According to the plaintiff, said order is void, having been passed behind his back and therefore, not binding on him. On such facts, the plaintiff instituted the aforementioned suit for a declaration that the order dated 05.04.1984 passed by the Tahasildar in the OEA Case is void and without jurisdiction.

4. The defendants contested the suit claiming that the nature of the land is communal and belonged to the ex- intermediary, Md. Habibur Reheman being recorded under Anabadi Khata. The status of the land was Bajyapti Madhya Satwadhikari. The land vested in the State free from all encumbrances after coming into force of the OEA Act. It was further stated that the plaintiff appeared in the OEA case but failed to produce the purported hata patta and did not adduce any evidence. The lease deed relied upon by him is a fabricated one and so also the rent receipts supposedly granted by the ex-landlord. The Tahsildar conducted field enquiry and found two tanks thereon which were being used by the villagers. The house constructed over the suit land was described as library by them. The Tahasildar was thus competent to initiate the proceeding and rightly passed the order in question finding the plaintiff not in physical possession.

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issued for determination.

“1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action to file the suit against the defendants?

2. Is the suit maintainable in the present form?

3. Is the suit barred by limitation?

4. Is the order dtd.5.4.84 passed by the defendant No.2 in 5(1) case No.1/76 valid and binding on the parties?

5. Is the suit barred U/S 39 of the OEA Act.

6. Is the suit bad for want of notice U/O 1 Rule

8 CPC?

7. Is the notice U/S 80 CPC valid and legal?

8. Is the suit property valued and proper C. fees paid?

9. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?”

6. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court found that no notice of the OEA Proceeding was issued to the lesser and lessee, i.e., the ex-landlord