Supreme Court of India
Md. Shakoor Mian vs Raj Mangal Mishra And Ors. on 17 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: JT1999(9)SC293, (1999)7SCC461, 2000 AIR SCW 1911, 1999 (7) SCC 461, (2000) 1 LANDLR 515, (2000) 2 BLJ 324, (1999) 9 JT 293 (SC)
Author: S. Saghir Ahmad
Bench: R.P. Sethi, S. Saghir Ahmad
ORDER S. Saghir Ahmad, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The matter involved in this case pertains to the proceedings held under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Sections 37A and 37B of the Act provide as under:
37-A. Authorities under the Act to be deemed courts of competent jurisdiction.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director of Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be deemed to be courts of the competent jurisdiction while hearing objections or appeals or deciding disputes under this Act.
37-B. Authorities under this Act to have powers and privileges as are vested in a civil court in certain matters.-(1) The Director of Consolidation, Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall have all such powers, rights and privileges while hearing any matter in dispute as are vested in a civil court in respect of the following matters, namely,-
(a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise and issuing a commission to examine witnesses;
(b) compelling any person for the production of any document;
(c) punishing the persons guilty of contempt.
(2) A summons signed by such officer may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action by a civil court for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of any document.
3. Relying upon these provisions and also on an earlier decision of the High Court in Ram Sigashan Pathak v. K.P. Sinha 1988 BUR 682 the learned Single Judge of the High Court before whom the decision of the Consolidation Authorities was challenged by the respondent, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Mahua, District Vaishali, as it was found that the evidence had not been brought on record in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The letters patent appeal filed thereafter was dismissed as the High Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter where a case has been remanded. It, however, directed that the case would be heard by the revisional authority, namely, the Director of Consolidation. It is against this decision that the present appeal has been filed.
4. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment passed by the Consolidation Authorities at various levels in which the evidence adduced by the parties has been noticed. It is also pointed out that the decision of the Single Judge in Ram Sigashan case which was relied upon by the High Court had already been overruled by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court itself in Junaid Khan v. State of Bihar 2 (1995) 2 Pat LJR 301 (DB) and, therefore, there was no occasion to issue a direction to the revisional authority, to which the case was remanded for disposal in accordance with the decision in Ram Sigashan case.
5. The High Court has not touched the merits of the case as it was of the opinion that the evidence was not brought on record in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code which had to be followed as the Consolidation Authorities were regular courts in view of the provisions contained in Sections 37A and 37B of the Act. Since the High Court had itself overruled the decision in Ram Sigashan case there was no occasion for the Single Judge or the Division Bench to place reliance on that decision. While considering the scope of the provisions of Sections 37A and 37B of the Act, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court presided over by the then Chief Justice G.B. Pattanaik (as his Lordship then was), observed as under:
24. In fact Section 37B of the Act qualifies the scope of Section 37A. This Section 37A of the Act is more comprehensive and general in nature. It postulates that all the Consolidation Authorities while deciding objections, appeals or revisions, would be deemed to be courts. What Section 37B restricts is that the Consolidation Authorities would be treated to be courts, but only for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, compelling any person for production of the any documents etc. Section 37B of the Act is substantially added by the legislature to operate as a proviso.
25. Keeping in view the duties to be performed by the Consolidation Authorities and as they decide the rights of the parties and obtain documentary and oral evidence of the parties and also examine the witnesses on oath, they are to be assumed as courts with competent jurisdiction with the help of legal fiction created by legislature, but in fact they are not courts.
6. The Consolidation Authorities have been given powers as are available to civil courts for limited purposes specified in Sections 37-A and 37B of the Act, but the Consolidation Authorities cannot be equated with regular courts. While specifying the powers of the Consolidation Authorities, it was specifically pointed out in Section 37B quoted above that the Consolidation Authorities while hearing any matter in dispute, shall have all such powers, the rights and privileges which are available to a civil court in respect of the matters including enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise and issuing a commission to examine witnesses; or to compel any person to produce documents. The Consolidation Authorities were also vested with the power to punish a person guilty of contempt. This, however, does not mean that the documents or the oral evidence could have been brought on record only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Evidence Act or the Civil Procedure Code as the evidence could legally be brought on record in accordance with the procedure by the Consolidation Authorities.
7. The evidence had already been led by the parties and the same was brought on record and duly considered by the Consolidation Authorities. The Joint Director (Consolidation), while considering the revision has noticed as under:
The plaintiff has produced the following documentary evidence in support of his case:
1. Certified copy of old survey map.
2. Certified copy of old survey khasra.
3. Certified copy of old survey record.
4. Copy of panchnama and award of panchnama dated 21-7-1956.
5. Attested copy of compromise application dated 31-7-1956 filed in the Court of Shri B.P. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur.
6. Attested copy of compromise order dated 31-7-1956 passed by the Court of Shri B.P. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur.
7. Attested copy of compromise application dated 4-1-1977 filed in the Court of SDM, Hajipur
8. Attested copy of compromise application filed in Title Suit No. 6 of 1977 in the IInd Court of Munsif, Hajipur.
9. Attested copy of gift deed CSP No. 1079 of 1976 registered in favour of kabristan.
10. Original copy of abandonment of claim written in respect of the land in dispute.
11. Photocopy of report given by the CID Inspector, Hajipur in respect of kabristan (graveyard).
12. Certified copy of order passed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) on 31-3-1986 in Suit No. 835 of 1986-87.
13. Map showing comparison of new khasra with old Khasras Nos. 1081 and 1079 of 1976 and attested copy of the report given by the Area Amin, Mahua.
14. Attested copy of report given by the SDM, Mahua in respect of the land in dispute.
15. Attested copy of report by Mukhia and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chandsarai in respect of the land in dispute.
16. Attested copy of the signatures made by the members of the Gramin Salahkar Samiti at the time of on-the-spot-inspection being made on 18-1-1987 by the Consolidation Officer, Mahua.
17. Attested copy of order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Mahua on 12-6-1972 in the remanded Suit No. 835 of 1985-86.
18. Attested copy of an application filed in Appeal No. 40 of 1993 on 6-12 1993 by the plaintiff in this suit which shows that the plaintiff had filed an application in Appeal No. 35 of 1993 on 3-12-1993.
19. Attested copy of pieces of evidence given in Appeal No. 40 of 1993 filed in Court of Assistant Director (Consolidation), Vaishali.
20. Attested copy of applications given on 3-12-1993 and 4-12-1993 in Appeal No. 35 of 1993.
21. Attested copies of documents filed in Appeal No. 35 of 1993
22. Copy of order passed by the Court of Deputy Director (Consolidation), Vaishali, in Appeal No. 35 of 1993
23. Copy of entries made in consolidation record regarding the land in dispute. The defendant side has made the following submission and produced the following documentary evidence:
1. Photocopy of an old map of survey of old Plot No. 1081 (area being 1.40 acres)
2. Photocopy of Khata No. 290 Khasra No. 1081.
3. Attested copy of new Survey Khata No. 206 (new Survey Plot No. 755/3118).
4. Photocopy of RS Khata No. 60 (RS Plot No. 951).
5. Photocopy of RS Khata No. 94 (RS Plot No. 950).
6. Copy of notifications dated 15-1-1975 to 13-2-1975 under Section 10(1) regarding valuation.
7. Photocopy of receipt issued by the Zamindar.
8. Photocopy of new survey slip.
9. Photocopy of receipt of land revenue issued by the Government.
10. Attested copy of order passed on 10-12-1986 by the CO, Mahua in Suit No. 309 of 1984.
11. Attested copy of order passed on 7 12-1993 in Suit No. 40 of 1993 by the Assistant Director (Consolidation), Vaishali.
12. Attested copy of order passed on 31-3-1986 in Appeal No. 835 of 1986-87 remanded by the Consolidation Officer, Mahua:
13. Copy of affidavit given by Defendant 6.
8. After enumerating the documents which were filed by the parties, the Deputy Director further observed as under:
None of the parties has produced copies of postings made in the record at the time of present survey and the copy of map of present survey, therefore, the map of present survey and postings made in the record at the time of present survey were called for and perused. The original copy of Letter No. 1070 dated 9-3-1987 sent by the SDM, Mahua to the Consolidation Officer, Mahua is available on record in which it has been stated that the Regional Officer accompanied by the Regional Inspector and the employee concerned made inspection of land.
9. It will thus be seen that full opportunity was given to the parties to adduce their evidence, and the evidence, in fact, had been brought on record which was duly considered by the Consolidation Authorities. The High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the findings recorded by the Consolidation Authorities, on the technical plea that the evidence had not been brought on record in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act or the CPC.
10. In view of the above, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 30-3-1995 passed by the learned Single Judge as also the judgment dated 7-7-1997 passed by the Division Bench and remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court to hear the letters patent appeal afresh and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.