Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 360
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1627 OF 2016
RAM BALAK SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. This is plaintiff’s appeal arising out of a suit for possession
and confirmation of his possession over the suit land which
was decreed in his favour by the court of first instance but
the decree was set aside in First Appeal and was affirmed by
the High Court.
2. The dispute in the suit is regarding 0.32 decimal of land of
R.S.P. No.821 situate in village Kishanpur, district Sit-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2024.05.01
15:49:00 IST
Reason:
amarhi, Bihar. This area of land was carved out from C.S.P.
1
No.332 of Khata No.196 which belonged to Rambati Kuwer,
the ex-landlord.
3. The aforesaid ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer settled the above
area of the suit land in favour of Makhan Singh, son of late
Ram Govind Singh vide lease deed ( patta ) of 1341 fasli
whereupon the said Makhan Singh continued in possession
of it during his lifetime. The said Makhan Singh had no is-
sue. It is alleged that he adopted plaintiff-appellant who in-
herited the suit land after Makhan Singh. Accordingly,
plaintiff-appellant is presently in possession of the suit land
which had been in his family’s possession ever since it was
settled by ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer in favour of Makhan
Singh.
4. It so happened that the village was brought under consolid-
ation in accordance with the Bihar Consolidation of Uphold-
1
ings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 .
Since the aforesaid land was incorrectly recorded in the
5.
name of the State, the plaintiff-appellant in accordance with
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation Act’
2
Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act applied for the cor-
rection of revenue/consolidation records. The Consolidation
Officer, Bathnaha upon following the due process of law
vide its order dated 12.11.1979, directed for the correction
of the record-of-rights. The name of the plaintiff-appellant
was directed to be recorded in respect of 0.32 decimal area
of land of R.S.P. No.821. The aforesaid order was duly im-
plemented and the name of the plaintiff-appellant was
entered into the record-of-rights. The aforesaid order is final
and conclusive. It was not challenged by any party, not even
by the State of Bihar in any higher forum.
6. Subsequently, the State Authorities started claiming the en-
tire land of 4 acre 58 decimal of C.S.P. No.332 as jalkar
(pond land) which included the suit land also and thus al-
legedly started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-
appellant. The plaintiff-appellant having no other option
after service of notice dated 09.09.2004 as contemplated by
Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, instituted the Suit
No.103/2004 ‘Ram Balak Singh, s/o late Makhan Singh vs.
3
State of Bihar and Anr.’ for declaring his title over the suit
land as described in Schedule-A to the plaint and to confirm
his possession over it.
7. The aforesaid suit was instituted on the allegations as nar-
rated above that the suit land belonged to Rambati Kuwer,
the ex-landlord, who settled it in favour of Makhan Singh in
1341 fasli . The plaintiff-appellant is the adopted son of the
said Makhan Singh and as such succeeded to the said land.
During the consolidation proceedings on petitions/objec-
tions under Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act, the Con-
solidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 12.11.1979
ruled in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and directed his
name to be recorded in the record-of-rights which order at-
tained finality and has been implemented. Therefore, the
State has no right, title or jurisdiction over the suit land
which is in possession of the plaintiff-appellant.
The summons of the suit were received by the officers of the
8.
State but on their behalf no written statement was filed to
controvert the plaint allegations despite several opportunit-
4
ies. Lastly on 04.02.2006, the right of the State to file writ-
ten statement was closed and the suit was fixed for hearing
under Order VIII Rule X of Code of Civil Procedure. Since
the plaint allegations were not controverted, no issue actu-
ally arose between the parties for determination, nonethe-
less, the trial court after formulating the point of determina-
tion i.e. whether the plaintiff-appellant has been able to es-
tablish his case over the suit land by any cogent and reli-
able evidence proceeded to decide the suit on merits. The
suit was decreed but the decree, as stated earlier, was re-
versed by the first appellate court and its decision was up-
held by the High Court.
9. The plaintiff-appellant has now come up before this Court
by filing Special Leave Petition, which on leave being gran-
ted has been registered as Civil Appeal. We have heard
Ms. Nandadevi Deka, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Suyash Vyash, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The primary argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-
appellant is that he or his predecessor-in-interest is in pos-
5
session of the suit land ever since it was settled in favour of
Makhan Singh by the ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer. During
the consolidation proceedings, the rights of the plaintiff-ap-
pellant over the said land were accepted and vide order
dated 12.11.1979, his name was directed to be recorded in
the record-of-rights. In this way, the right and title of the
plaintiff-appellant over the suit land stood crystalized.
Therefore, the State of Bihar cannot in any way claim the
said land and disturb his possession without following any
procedure of law and payment of compensation. The appel-
late courts below have manifestly erred in law in reversing
the decree of the court of first instance as the judgment and
order of the Consolidation Officer is final and conclusive
and cannot be overruled or brushed aside to record any
findings contrary to it, more particularly when the plaintiff-
appellant has adduced sufficient evidence to establish his
right and possession over the suit land.
11. Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar set up the defence
that the entire land of C.S.P. No. 332 is the pond land and it
6
cannot be settled in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. He
does not have any possession over the same. Secondly, in
view of the bar imposed by Section 37 of the Consolidation
Act, the civil suit as filed by the plaintiff-appellant itself was
not maintainable and therefore the appellate courts below
have not erred in reversing the order of the trial court and
dismissing the suit.
12. On the submissions advanced by the parties and under the
facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, the
moot question which arises for our consideration is:
whether in view of the bar imposed under Section 37 of the
Consolidation Act, the order of the Consolidation Authority
confirming the title of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit
land and directing for recording his name in the record of
rights under Section 10(B) of Consolidation Act, is liable to
be reversed or ignored by the Civil Court.
13. A bare reading of the provisions of the Consolidation Act
would reveal that upon declaration of the State Government
of its intention to bring about a scheme of Consolidation in
7
the village(s) and till the close of the consolidation opera-
tion, the duty of preparing and maintaining the record of
rights and the village maps of each village shall be per-
formed by the Director of Consolidation and no suit or legal
proceeding in respect of any land in such area(s) shall be
entertained by any court. The Consolidation Act even pro-
hibits the transfer by any person of land falling within the
notified area without the previous sanction of the Consolid-
ation Officer during the consolidation operation. It further
provides that no question in respect of any entry made in
the map or register prepared in relation to the consolidation
area, which might or ought to have been raised before the
consolidation authorities shall be permitted to be raised or
heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceed-
ing. The Consolidation Act specifically provides that all mat-
ters relating to changes and transfers affecting any rights or
interests recorded in the register of land may be raised be-
fore the Consolidation Officer within the time prescribed
8
and the disputes in this regard once decided cannot be re-
opened on the publication of the register.
14. Section 37 of the Consolidation Act bars the jurisdiction of
the Civil Courts and it reads as under:
“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.”
15. In short, the scheme of the Consolidation Act provides that
all rights in the land under consolidation, if any, would be
determined by the consolidation authorities and the public-
ation of the register of rights thereunder would be final and
conclusive and it cannot be disputed at any subsequent
stage. The aforesaid adjudication of the rights over the land
under consolidation has not been specifically subjected to
the rights of parties, if any, determined by the Civil Court. It
is to be noted that the Legislature in its wisdom has
provided for a separate forum to deal with any matter for
which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken un-
9
der the Consolidation Act in the course of consolidation and
bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
16. Under the scheme of the Consolidation Act, the consolida-
tion authorities are fully competent to deal with the issue of
title over the land under consolidation except under certain
contingencies. Thus, the consolidation authorities have the
powers of the Civil Court to decide the question of the title
subject to the judicial review by the High Court under Art-
icles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In other
words, the consolidation authorities have the status of the
deemed courts and have the powers akin to the Civil Courts
to decide the rights and title of the parties over the land un-
der consolidation and, at the same time, oust the jurisdic-
tion of the Civil Court.
17. We are conscious of the fact that revenue entries are not
documents of title and do not ordinarily confer or extinguish
title in the land but, nonetheless, where the revenue au-
thorities or the consolidation authorities are competent to
determine the rights of the parties by exercising powers
10
akin to the Civil Courts, any order or entry made by such
authorities which attains finality has to be respected and
given effect to.
18. Here in the case at hand, there is no dispute to the fact that
0.32 decimal of R.S.P. No. 821 situate in village Kishanpur,
Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar, was settled by the ex-landlord Ram-
bati Kuwer in favour of Makhan Singh through patta (lease
deed), the execution of which is not in dispute. The said
Makhan Singh adopted the plaintiff-appellant vide deed
dated 27.05.1957 ( Exh-2 ). The order of the Chakbandi Of-
ficer, Bathnaha (Exh -7) demonstrates that the plaintiff-ap-
pellant had filed Case No.11 of 1979 under Section 10(B) of
the Consolidation Act for the correction of the entry in re-
spect of the suit land and that the Consolidation Officer
vide order dated 12.11.1979 on the basis of the documents
and the oral evidence adduced before him ruled that
plaintiff-appellant is the adopted son of Makhan Singh; that
he is in possession of the suit land and no villager or any
other party has any objection if the same is recorded in his
11
name. The Consolidation Officer further referring to the
patta by which the said land was settled in favour of
Makhan Singh and the adoption deed directed the name of
the plaintiff-appellant to be recorded in the record of rights.
19. It is an admitted fact that after the closure of the consolida-
tion proceedings when the possession of the plaintiff-appel-
lant came to be interfered with by the State, he was forced
to file a suit for declaration of his rights over the said land
irrespective of the finality of the order of the Consolidation
Officer. The cause of action in the said suit was a fresh
cause of action arising after the closure of consolidation
proceedings. In the said suit no contest was made by the
State of U.P., neither any written statement was filed nor
any evidence was adduced on its behalf. The court of first
instance on the basis of the evidence both documentary
and oral adduced by the plaintiff-appellant decreed the suit
and held him to be the owner in possession of the suit land.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the rights
of the parties over the suit land stood crystalised with the
12
passing of the order dated 12.11.1979 by the Consolidation
Officer which became final and conclusive. The State of Bi-
har never challenged the said order. It is not its case that
the aforesaid order has been obtained by concealment of
facts or by playing fraud upon the consolidation authorities.
The State of Bihar at no point of time came forward to claim
the right, title or interest of disputed land before any forum
either the consolidation authorities or the Civil Court,
rather forced the plaintiff-appellant to institute the civil suit
despite recognition of his rights by the consolidation au-
thorities.
21. In view of the above, when the rights of the plaintiff-appel-
lant have been determined and recognised by the consolida-
tion authorities, the order of the Consolidation Officer to
that effect in favour of the plaintiff-appellant could not have
been ignored by the Civil Court. The jurisdiction of the Civil
Court in respect of the rights determined by the Consolida-
tion Officer stands impliedly excluded by the very scheme of
the Consolidation Act. The appellate courts below completely
13
fell in error in holding otherwise discarding the order of the
Consolidation Officer which was sacrosanct as to the rights
in respect to the suit land.
22. Insofar as, the bar of Civil Court imposed by Section 37 of
the Consolidation Act is concerned, a plain reading of the
said provision would reveal that the Civil Court is prohib-
ited from entertaining any suit to vary or set aside any de-
cision or order of the Consolidation Court passed under the
Act in respect of the matter for which the proceedings could
have or ought to have been taken under the Consolidation
Act.
23. In the instant case, the plaintiff-appellant has not instituted
any suit either to vary or set aside any decision or order
passed by the Consolidation Court under the Consolidation
Act. The plaintiff-appellant had simply filed a suit for recog-
nising the rights which have been conferred upon him by
the Consolidation Court and has not filed a suit challenging
any order passed by the Consolidation Court under the Act.
Therefore, the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court imposed by
14
Section 37 is not applicable to the present suit which is a
simpliciter for declaration of his rights over the suit land on
the basis of the order of the Consolidation Court.
24. In view of the facts and circumstances, even though there
was no necessity on the part of the plaintiff-appellant to
have instituted any civil suit for declaration of his rights
over the suit land inasmuch as his rights over the same
stood determined by the Consolidation Court vide order
dated 12.11.1979, nonetheless, a suit as filed by him is not
barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, as it does not
propose to challenge any order passed by the Consolidation
Court under the Consolidation Act.
25. Thus, our answer to the question framed in paragraph 12
above is that a civil suit for declaration of rights in respect
of land where the Consolidation Court has already passed
an order recognizing the rights of one of the parties is not
barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act and that the
Civil Court is not competent to either ignore or reverse the
15
order passed by the Consolidation Officer once it has at-
tained finality.
26. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned judg-
ment and orders of the appellate courts dated 20.10.2011
and 14.07.2008 are set aside and that of the court of the
first instance dated 04.07.2006 is restored. Consequently,
the suit of the plaintiff-appellant stands decreed.
27. The appeal is allowed with no order as to cost.
……………………………………………….. J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)
……………………………………………….. J.
(PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
01 MAY, 2024.
16