Civil Courts may not interfere with consolidation records unless significant arbitrariness is demonstrated; judicial procedures must be adhered to diligently.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. These Appellant, in filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.05.1998 and 25.06.1998 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur in Title Appeal No.05 of 1994.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the Respondent (Plaintiff) challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1993 and 06.01.1994 passed by the learned Munsif, Rampur in Title Suit No.68/68 of 1991-92, under section-96 of the Code has been allowed and thereby, the suit of the Plaintiff has been decreed by declaring his right, title and interest over the suit land with confirmation of possession.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. The Plaintiff’s case is that the suit land as described in the Schedule of the plaint which included consolidable and non-consolidable plots described as per the record published in the consolidation operation is owned by him and as such he is the recorded tenant of the same. It is stated that in the consolidation operation, the record of right in respect of the suit land has been published and it has attained finality being not so challenged before any forum as available within the scheme and framework of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the ‘OCH&PFL Act’).

It is further stated that the Consolidation Authority while recording the suit land in the name of the Plaintiff have made certain notes as to the possession of the suit land in the said consolidation record of right which is without any jurisdiction and wholly erroneous. The Defendants by taking advantage of such note of possession created disturbances in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land and house, which drove the Plaintiff to file the suit.

4. The Defendants while traversing the plaint averments have pleaded that the suit land except the land under Sabik Plot No.1507 where the ancestral properties of the parties and those originally belong to Sankirtan Dandasena. Said Sankirtan Dandasena who is the common ancestor of the parties had two wives. Sribachha is the son of Sankirtan through first wife and the Kandarpa is the son of Sankirtan through the second wife. Plaintiff’s father is Sribachha whereas the Defendant is the son of Kandarpa. The Defendant No.1 is the son and the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of Kandarpa.

It is stated that prior to the 4^th settlement operation, the ancestral properties of the parties were partitioned between two branches that is Sribachha and Kandarpa. Accordingly, the record of right were separately prepared in their names in respect of the land which had fallen in their respective shares. As regards land under Sabik Plot No.1507; it is stated that the same has been declared as Rakhit in the 4^th settlement operation. Except that land, other land and houses are said to be in possession of the Defendant’s father and after him with the Defendants. Accordingly, it is stated that the Sabik Plot No.1589, 1504, 1505, 1506 and 1508, under Holding Nos. 29 and 28 correspond to the suit Plot No.1003/1087 of the consolidation record of right and those are in possession of the Defendants and so also the land under Sabik Plot No.1343 corresponding to suit plot No.523 of the consolidation record of right. It is also stated that land under Sabik Plot No.1507 corresponding to suit Plot No.1002