Consolidation authorities lack jurisdiction to declare a document voidable; such determinations fall within civil court purview.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.N. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. U.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for State-Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. S. Sourav on behalf of Mr. S.K. Hota, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

2. The common impugned order dated 30.05.2017 passed in both the revisions by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-8 is under challenge before this Court.

3. Consolidation Revision Case Nos.561 of 2014 and 562 of 2014 were filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Deputy Director. Both the revisions before the Commissioner arose out of two appeals filed by the Petitioner. Initially, two objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer, one by the Petitioner and another by Opposite Party No.1 along with her mother. The Consolidation Officer has allowed the objection filed by Opposite Party No.1 and rejected the objection filed by the Petitioner.

4. The issue revolves around ‘void’ or ‘voidability’ of the RSD dated 28.1.1977, allegedly executed by Opposite Party No.1 and her mother in favour of the Petitioner.

5. The facts in brief are that, the Petitioner is the bother of mother of Opposite Party No.1. After death of father of Opposite Party No.1, the questioned Registered Sale Deed No.316 dated 28.1.1977 (hereinafter referred as ‘RSD’) was executed in favour of the Petitioner by Opposite Party No.1 and her mother. At the time of execution of the RSD, Opposite Party No.1 claimed to be a minor and her mother died during pendency of the revision before the Commissioner. It is the case of Opposite Party No.1 that the RSD was executed on the guise of execution of a Power of Attorney and the Petitioner by fraudulently misrepresenting the facts has managed to execute the RSD in his favour in respect of the properties in question.

6. Mr. B.N. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner in both the writ petition submits that, in the matter of adjudication before the consolidation authorities, they have no power to decide that the document is voidable though the consolidation authorities can declare a document void. According to Mr. Bhuyan, the power to adjudicate voidability of a document is not with the consolidation authorities and the only power remains with the civil court to declare a document voidable.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 in both the writ petitions submits that, the RSD which is stated to be voidable by the Consolidation Commissioner is a document as void ab initio and the authority is in mistake held the same as voidable and therefore, the jurisdiction of the consolidation authority to ignore the RSD as void ab initio is justified.

8. The RSD in question is undoubtedly a document executed by Opposite Party No.1 and her mother in favour of the Petitioner selling out the properties mentioned therein. In order to question the nature of document as void or voidable, the decision in Dularia Devi vs. Janardan Singh and others , 1990 (Supp) SCC 216 , as referred by Mr. Sourav, is taken aid of. In the said case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bar under the Consolidation Act in respect of a sale deed was under question that, whether the consolidation authorities have the power to declare the same as void. By relying on the case of Gorakh Nath Dube vs. Hari Narain Singh and others , (1973) 2 SCC 535 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as follows:

“5. In Gorakh Nath Dube vs. Hari Narain Singh and others , (1973) 2 SCC 535 , this Court held that the obje