Patna High Court
Anandi Prasad And Anr. vs Nandan Das And Ors. on 4 April, 1984
Equivalent citations: 1986(34)BLJR33
JUDGMENT Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J.
1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal which is directed against a judgment of reversal.
2. There is a plot of land in mauza Medini Bigha in the district of Patna. It appertains to plot No. 60, khata No. 286 and tauzi No. 13230. Its area is one bigha. 12 kathas of land of this plot in the western side is the land in dispute. According to the plaintiffs' father of the plaintiffs took settlement of the one bigha of land of plot No. 60 from the ex-inter mediary, Baiju Lal Nakphopha, by virtue of a Hukumnama dated 14-6-1945. He came in possession thereof and is paying rent. The plaintiffs planted trees thereon and constructed a house. Under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act there was a consolidation proceeding in respect of this plot before the Revenue authorities. The defendants claimed to have purchased the suit land by virtue of a registered sale deed as 6.2.1953 (Exhibit-B/1) for a valuable consideration. It was executed by one Lakhi Dass. The vendor Lakhi Dass alleged to have taken settlement of this land from one Baldeo Lal Nakphopha, grandfather of the settler of the plaintiffs, by means of a Hukumnama (Exhibit-H) in the year 1321 fasli. The defendants too claimed possession over the suit land, to have planted trees thereon and to have constructed a house. Both the parties raised their claims and counter-claims before the Revenue authorities in the Consolidation proceeding. The dispute was decided in favour of the defendants and the names of the defendants were recorded in respect of the suit land in the said consolidation proceeding. When, by virtue of the entries in the consolidation proceeding, the defendants began to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs instituted the instant suit which was contested by the defendants.
3. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit negativing the contention raised on behalf of the defendants as to the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts under Section 37 of the Act. It held that the act of the Chakbandi Officer recording the suit property in the record of rights in the' name of the defendants had the effect of creating title of defendants and extinguishing the title of the plaintiffs and, therefore, Section 37 of the Act was no bar to the suit. The defendants carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court held that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in favour of the plaintiffs in variation with the decision of the consolidation authorities was a nullity, without jurisdiction and against the law. The suit was, therefore, dismissed after allowing the appeal. The plaintiffs have now come up in Second Appeal before this Court.
4. Two substantial questions of law framed by this Court, while admitting this Second Appeal, may be seen in Order No. 4 dated 30.7.1981. They are these:
(1) Whether Section 37 of the Act is a bar to the maintainability of the suit giving rise to this appeal and (2) Whether the Civil Court can adjudicate upon the title of the parties and give its declaration in favour of the person whose title and interest were not recognized by the authorities under the Act?
Since point No. 2 follows as a corollary to point No. 1, the sole substantial question of law involved is whether Section 37 of the Act would be a bar to the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court.
5. This substantial question of law has to be answered in the affirmative. The Act makes provisions for preparation of draft scheme, its publication, disposal of objections and after other formalities, for confirmation of the scheme and under Section 16 of the Act, confirmation scheme is to be treated as finally published record of rights. There is provision for appeal against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer in Sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Act. Section 35 of the Act makes provision for revision and reference by the Director of Consolidation. Then follows Section 36 of the Act which lays down that "except as provided in this Act, no appeal or revision shall lie from any order passed under this Act". Section 37 of the Act provides: "No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or application to vary or set aside any decision or order given or passed under this Act with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act". Section 37-A of the Act provides, inter alia, that "the authorities under the Act shall be deemed to be Courts of competent jurisdiction while hearing objections or appeals or deciding disputes under this Act" and they have been given certain powers of the Civil Courts under Section 37-B of the Act. Section 39 of the Act lays down that "the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force".
6. The competency of the proceedings before the consolidation authorities in respect of the suit land is not under dispute. It is also undisputed that both the parties put forward their respective claims in respect of the suit land and, ultimately, the decision of the consolidation authorities went against the plaintiffs and the suit land was recorded in the names of the defendants and in their possession. In such a situation, allowing the relief in the instant suit will amount to varying or setting aside the decision or order given by the Consolidation Officer under the Act and the mischief of Section 37 of the Act will be attracted. In Bijali Thakur and Ors. v. Rameshwar Thakur and Ors. 1977 B.B.C.J. 701 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the act is a self contained Act with regard to determination of all matters which may or ought to be raised before the prescribed authority, decision of authorities on such matters are final and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with anything done by the authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
7. While Sri Balbhadra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, in his usual frankness, did not challenge the above proposition of law, he simply invited ray attention to two decisions, one of the Supreme Court reported in Munshi Muzhool Raza v. Hasan Raza and the other of a Special Bench decision of this Court reported in Ram Krit Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1979 B.B.C.J. 259 In Munshi Muzbool Raza v. Hasan Raza (supra), the Supreme Court held that where the appeal to the Supreme Court related to a right in a land in an area which was subjected to consolidation proceedings, the same would abate. In Ram Krit Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar (supra), the observations of this Court were as follows:
...It is obvious, therefore, that on the close of consolidation operation in a village or area, the abated suits would revive. But the revival of those suits would not create any problems as suits will have to be decided in conformity with the decisions arrived at in the consolidation proceedings in so far as the rights or interest in any land covered by the consolidation proceeding is concerned.
Sri R.K. Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents, did not dispute these propositions.
8. The result is that there is no merit in this Second Appeal which fails and is dismissed. The Judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court are hereby confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order for costs of this Second Appeal and the parties shall bear their own costs.