You are on page 1of 17

PROJECT DRAFT ON LAND LAW

SUBMITTED BY
SANGITESH SHIVAM
OF
9TH SEMSTER
ROLL NUMBER 1182083
BBALLB(B)

ABSTRACT
The researcher in this research piece had tried to emphasize on the provisions of The Orissa
consolidation of Holdings And prevention of fragmentation of land Act 1972. Basically in this
research piece the researcher had done a brief study along with some case law from section 23 to
32 of the act which falls under chapter 4 and deals with enforcement of the act. in this research
piece the researcher had explained the principal of each of the relevant provisions.

INTRODUCTION
ORISSA ACT NO 21 OF 1972 THE ORISSA CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND
PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION OF LAND ACT, 1972 [Published vide Orissa Gazette
Ext. No. 1656/30.11.1972. [As amended by Orissa Act No.2 of 1989] AN ACT TO PROVIDE
FOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION OF
LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN THE STATE OF ORISSA
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Orissa in the Twenty-third Year of the Republic of
India, as follows: [See Orissa Gazette Ext. No. 52/7.1.1972.]Statement of Objects and ReasonsIn the context of strategy for increasing agricultural production in the country and in pursuance
thereof to give inducement and incentive to the cultivators, it is considered expedient to initiate
legislation for consolidation of scattered holdings and re-marriage the holdings including
fragmented holdings among various landowners to make them more compact and to provide
against future fragmentation of holdings. This will help in economic farming and application of
improved implements and methods of farming which are necessary for development of
agriculture and increased agricultural production
The present bill seeks to achieve this object.
-(i) Statement of objects and reasons cannot be used for interpreting the legislation it the words
used therein are clear enough but it can be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the
circumstance which led to the legislation in order to find out what was the mischief which the
legislation aimed at-AIR 1963 SC 1356: AIR 1963 SC 703: AIR 1963 SC 1241.

(ii) No relevancy in construing the true scope and effect of the provision when the words used
are perfectly intelligible and are used in their natural and plain meaning-AIR 1966 Ori. 1.
(iii) Statements of objects and reasons not admissible as an aid to the construction of a statute but
can be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the time
which actuated the sponsors of the Bill to introduce the same to the extent and urgency of the
evil which it sought to remedy-ILR 1975 Cutt. 843.

CHAPTER 4

ENFORCEMENT OF SCHEME

23. Entering into possession by land owner-On and after the date of publication of the map and
the record-of-rights under Sub-section (2) of Section 22, a land owner shall be entitled to enter
into possession of the lands allotted to him.
Principal ofThis section is that the act basically talks about entering into possession by the land
owner
24. (1) owner shall pay or receive compensation according as the valuation of houses structures,
trees, wells and other improvements existing on the lands allotted to him in the final
consolidation scheme is more or less than the valuation of such properties existing on the land
originally held by him
Explanation-For the purpose of Sub-section (1) compensation shall be the difference between
valuation of houses, structures, trees, wells and other improvements existing on the lands allotted

to him under the final consolidation scheme and the valuation of such properties originally held
by him.
(2) The amount of compensation determined shall be intimated to the landowners concerned in
the prescribed manner.25. Delivery of possession- (1) On an application made within sixty days
from the date of coming into force of the final Consolidation Scheme by the landowner who is
unable to enter into possession of the lands allotted to him under the said Scheme, the Assistant
Consolidation Officer may, within six months from the date of the application, put the land
owner in actual physical possession of lands so allotted, and in doing so, shall have all the
powers as are exercisable by a Civil Court in execution of decree for delivery of possession of
immovable property:
Provided that the delivery of possession as aforesaid shall not affect the right of the person from
whom possession is transferred to tend and gather the crops standing on such lands or part
thereof on the date of the delivery unless the Assistant Consolidation Officer decides, for reasons
to be recorded, that possession of the crops shall be delivered.
(2) On the expiry of six months from the date on which the land-owner becomes entitled to enter
into possession of the lands allotted to him in accordance with Section 23 or, where an
application has been duly made under Sub-section (1), on the expiry of six months from the date
of such application, the concerned land-owner shall, if he has not entered into Entering into
possession by land owner. Compensation for houses, structures, trees, wells, etc. On and from
the date of entering into possession, every land possession earlier, be deemed to have entered
into actual physical possession of lands to him
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) where no application is made
under Sub-section (1) by a land-owner and, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has reasons to
believe the land-owner has not entered into possession of the land allotted to him, he may, on his
own motion and at any time before the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section
41, put the landowner in actual physical possession of the lands so allotted in the same manner
and; subject to the same conditions as specified in Subsection (1).

(4) The powers conferred on the Assistant Consolidation Officer under. Subsection (3) shall, in
like manner and in like circumstances be exercisable by the Tahasildar having jurisdiction after
the issue of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 41
Principal of this section is that Compensation for houses, structures, trees, wells, etc. On and
from the date of entering into possession, every land

26. (1) Where possession of standing crops is delivered along with the land under Section 25,
Assistant Consolidation Officer shall determine, in consultation with the Consolidation
Committee, the compensation payable in respect of such crops by the landowner put in
possession. Explanation-Compensation for this purpose shall mean the anticipated value of the
standing crop when marketable less, reasonable expenses to be incurred for harvesting and
marketing of the crop
. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (1) may within thirty days from the
date of the order, prefer an appeal before the Consolidation Officer whose decision thereon shall
be final.
Principal of this section is that it basically talks about compensation for standing crops
27. (1) Where a land-owner from whom compensation is recoverable under this Act, falls, to pay
the same within six months from the date of intimation under Sub-section (2) of Section 24, the
person entitled to receive the same may, in addition to any other mode of recovery open to him,
apply to the Collector within six months from the expiry of the aforesaid period to recover on his
behalf the amount due as if it were a public demand payable to the State Government
. (2) Interest at the rate of six per cent per annum shall be charged on the amount of
compensation remaining unpaid after expiry of the earlier period referred to in Sub- section (1).
Principal of this section is that it basically talks about recovery of compensation
28. Where as a result of contribution of public purposes, under the provisions of Section 8, the
valuation of the original holding of a land owner is reduced, the rent and cess payable for the
holding shall be reduced by the Assistant Consolidation Officer notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the same proportion as the valuation of
the area so contributed bears to the original total valuation of the holding.
Principal of this section is that Reduction of rent and cess on account of contribution of land for
public purpose
29. An amount equal to five per cent of the market value of the land contributed for public
purposes as determined, in the prescribed manner shall be paid to the land-owner or owners
concerned
. (2) An amount equal to the market value of houses, structures, trees, wells, and other
improvements existing on the land contributed for public purposes as determined under this Act
shall also be paid to the landowners concerned.
Principal of this section is that Amount to be paid for land contributed for public purpose.
30. (1) The lands set apart for public purposes under the Final Consolidation Scheme shall, with
effect from the date of coming into force of the final scheme, be utilised for the said purposes.
(2) The land allotted to the State Government under the Final Consolidation Scheme shall, with
effect from the aforesaid date, vest and be always deemed to have vested in the State
Government.
(3) Where under a declaration under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 17, any land
belonging to the State Government or used for public purposes is allotted to a landowner, the
right of the village community as well as of all the individuals and of the State Government in
such lands shall cease to be attached to such land shall be attached to the lands specified for the
purpose in the Final Consolidation Scheme.
Principal of this section is that Vesting of land contributed for public purposes and allotted to
State Government
31. With effect from the date on which a land-owner enters or is deemed to have entered into
possession of the Chaka allowed to him in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the
following consequences shall ensue

(1) The right, title, interest and liabilities of every land-owner in respect of his original holding
shall cease: Provided that where the land-owner is allotted his original holding either wholly or
in part in the Final Consolidation Scheme his right, title, interest and liability in such holding or
part thereof, as the case may be, shall remain unaffected;
(2) Every landowner shall have the same right, title, interest and liabilities in the Chaka
allotted to him as he had in the original holding and the rights and interests of all other persons in
respect of such original holdings shall stand transferred to the said Chaka or to such part
thereof as specified in the Final Consolidation Scheme. Explanation-Every such land-owner shall
enjoy the benefit of irrigation existing on the land allotted to him.
Principal of this section is that Consequences to ensue on landowner entering into possession.
32. (1) The State Government may recover as they may fix from the land-owners of the unit
towards the cost of the operations conducted under this Act: Provided that the aforesaid amount
shall not be fixed at a rate exceeding ten rupees per acre and shall be recovered in five equal
annual instatements.
(2) An amount payable as costs under this section shall be recoverable as a public demand.
Principal of this section is that Cost of consolidation on operation

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS OVER THE TOPIC


IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
O.J.C. No. 4353 of 1997
Decided On: 28.11.2014
Appellants: Pradeep Kumar Behera and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.K. Nayak, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioners only challenges the jurisdiction of the Commissioner,
Land Records and Settlement to entertain the revision and pass the impugned order.
Undisputedly the R.O.R. in question was published under Section 13(1) of the Orissa
Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act and soon thereafter an
order by the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Consolidation Act was
published cancelling Government notification under Section 3(1) of the said Act whereby the
village in question had been brought under consolidation operation.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even though in terms of subsection (4) of Section 13 of the Consolidation Act, the R.O.R. published under sub-section (1) of
the said section be deemed to have been made under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act
because of order of de-notification issued under Section 5(1) of the Consolidation Act, since the
R.O.R. has been published on determination of right, title and interest by the competent
authorities under the Consolidation Act, it was only the Commissioner, Consolidation or the
Director, Consolidation, who could have revisional jurisdiction under Section 37 of the
Consolidation Act to decide the correctness, legality and propriety of the R.O.R. and the
Commissioner of land records and settlement could not have entertained the revision since the
authorities under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act have no jurisdiction to decide the
question of right, title and interest in land. His submission is that the deeming provision of
Section 13(4) of the Consolidation Act does not confer jurisdiction on the Settlement
Commissioner to decide the correctness of the R.O.R. published under Section 13(1) of the
Consolidation Act. Extending his argument he submits that in view of Section 51 of the
Consolidation Act investing jurisdiction on the Consolidation authorities and ousting the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of right, title and interest in the land within
the consolidation area and a publication of the R.O.R. under Section 13 of the Consolidation Act
is based on the decision of the question relating to right, title and interest by the consolidation
authorities, the Settlement Commissioner cannot sit on judgment over the said R.O.R. Drawing
analogy from Section 22 of the Consolidation Act, he submits further that a final consolidation
R.O.R. published under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Consolidation Act is also deemed to

be an R.O.R. prepared under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act as per sub-section (4) of
Section 22 but the correctness of such R.O.R. can be subjected to scrutiny only by the revisional
authority under the Consolidation Act and, therefore, for the same reason an R.O.R. published
under Section 13(1) of the Consolidation Act may be scrutinized by the revisional authority
under the said Act and not by the revisional authority under the Orissa Survey and Settlement
Act. He also submits that issuance of an order of de-notification of consolidation under Section
5(1) of the Consolidation Act does not obliterate the decision of the consolidation authorities
with regard to right, title and interest in land which has culminated in publication of R.O.R.
under Section 13(1) of the Act inasmuch as such publication is made after hearing of objections,
appeals and revisions with regard to right, title and interest in land. He further logicises his
contention stating that even after issuance of a notification under Section 41 of the Consolidation
Act closing consolidation operation in an area the revisional authorities under the Consolidation
Act continue to have jurisdiction with regard to orders passed by sub-ordinate authorities under
the Act and for the same reason even after de-notification of consolidation by publication of
order under Section 5(1) of the Act, the revisional authorities under the Consolidation Act will
continue to have jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, submits that issuance of order under
Section 5(1) of the Consolidation Act de-notifying consolidation operation not only has the effect
of stopping the consolidation proceeding in the consolidation area, but also has the effect of
obliterating all orders passed by the consolidation authorities deciding right, title and interest in
the land in the consolidation area and that since the consolidation proceeding in the area is
stopped from being brought to its logical end, the preparation of the R.O.R. under Section 13(1)
of the Act is only for the purpose of having consequences attached to publication of an R.O.R.
under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, by virtue of the deeming provision of Section 13(4)
of the Consolidation Act. Therefore, the Settlement Commissioner in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act can examine the
correctness of the entries made in the R.O.R. published under Section 13(1) of the Consolidation
Act.
Mr. N.K. Sahu, the learned amicus curiae supports the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners. Mr. U.K. Samal, the learned amicus curiae while supporting the contention of

the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 to the extent that publication of de-notification order
under Section 5(1) of the Consolidation Act obliterates and sets at naught all orders and actions
of the consolidation authorities in respect of their decisions on right, title and interest in land,
further contends that neither the revisional authorities under the Consolidation Act nor the
authorities under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act can have power or jurisdiction to
examine the correctness of the entries made in the R.O.R. and that any person aggrieved by any
entries made in any such R.O.R. shall have to take recourse to the common law forum by
instituting a civil suit.
. The question that falls for consideration is whether the correctness of R.O.R. published under
Section 13(1) of the Consolidation Act before issuance of order under Section 5(1) of the said
Act de-notifying consolidation operation in respect of the village concerned can be examined by
the revisional authority under the Consolidation Act or the revisional authority under the Orissa
Survey and Settlement
The Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 was enacted by the State Legislature to consolidate
and amend the laws relating to survey, preparation of record of rights and settlement of rent on
land holdings in the State of Orissa. Different parts of the State, prior to the enactment of the
Orissa Survey and Settlement Act 1958 (in short 'OSS Act') were being governed by different
tenancy laws for the purpose of survey, record of rights and settlement of rent, such as the
Bengal Survey Act, the Orissa Tenancy Act, the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, the Madras
Estates Land Act, the C.P. Settlement Act, the C.P. Tenancy Act etc. Under the OSS Act survey
includes all or any other operations incidental to the determination, measurement and record of a
boundary or boundaries. Record of Rights under the Act are prepared having particulars and
entries including the name of the tenant or occupant, the class to which each tenant belongs and
the nature of interest, extent of the land held by each tenant or occupant, name of the landlord
and/or proprietor of each tenant, the rent and charges for irrigation payable by each proprietor or
landlord, tenant or occupant and the special conditions or incidents of the tenancy, etc. as
envisaged in Rule-21 of the OSS Rules. Settlement with reference to the OSS Act means
settlement of rent to be payable by a tenant, rayat or sub-tenant to the landlord in respect of the
land held. Chapter-IV of the OSS Act deals with settlement of rent whereas Chapter-II deals with
survey. Chapter-III of the Act deals with record of rights (ROR). Proceedings with regard to

survey, record of rights and settlement of rent are taken up separately by order of Government
passed to that effect from time to time under different provisions of the Act. However, Section 36
of the OSS Act authorizes the Government to make order directing simultaneous proceedings to
be taken up in respect of survey and preparation of R.O.R; preparation of R.O.R. and settlement
of rent; or survey, preparation of R.O.R. and settlement of rent with respect to any local area.
The OSS Act provides for different hierarchy of officers and personnel and vested them with
power and jurisdiction for conducting different works and passing appropriate orders
After confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme final map and record of rights are
prepared and published under Section 22 of the Act, which runs as under:
Preparation and publication of final map and record-of-rights and coming into force of the final
consolidation scheme - (1)(a) As soon as may be after confirmation of the Provisional
Consolidation Scheme the Consolidation Officer shall cause to be prepared for each village in
the consolidation area a final map and record-or-rights on the basis of the Consolidation Scheme
so confirmed.
(b) The map and the record-of-rights shall contain such particulars as are required under the
Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (Orissa Act 3 of 1959) with such modifications as may
be prescribed and shall also show the rent and cess determined under Sub-section (3) of Section
7.
(2) The map and the record-of-rights prepared under Sub-section (1) shall be published in the
prescribed manner and the Final Consolidation Scheme shall come into force from the date of
such publication.
(3) The relevant extract of the record-of-rights shall be supplied to the land-owners at the time of
publication.
(4) The map and the record-of-rights published under Sub-section (1) shall, subject to alterations
and modifications made in pursuance of orders passed under Section 15 or 36 or orders referred
to in Sub-section (3) of Section 41, for all intents and purposes be deemed to have been prepared
under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958."

As per Section 23 of the Act, on an after the date of publication of the map and record of rights
under sub-section (2) of Section 22, a land-owner shall be entitled to enter into possession of the
land allotted to him.
Section 25 provides that on an application made within sixty days from the date of coming into
force of the final consolidation scheme by the land-owner who is unable to enter into possession
of the land allotted to him under the Scheme, the A.C.O. may put the land-owner into actual
physical possession of the lands so allotted. Under sub-section (3) of Section 25 in the absence of
any application by the land-owner, the A.C.O. may on his own motion at any time before the
issue of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 41 put the land-owner into actual physical
possession of the allotted lands, if he has reason to believe that the land-owner has not entered
into possession. Under sub-section (2) of Section 25 on expiry of six months from the date on
which the land-owner becomes entitled to enter into possession of the lands in accordance with
Section 23 or where an application has been made to the A.C.O. under sub-section (1), on the
expiry of six months from the date of such application, the land owner shall, if not entered into
possession earlier, be deemed to have entered into actual possession of the land.. Section 31 of
the Consolidation Act provides for consequences to ensue on land-owner entering into
possession. The said Section is extracted hereunder:. Consequences to ensue on land-owner
entering into possession - With effect from the date on which a land-owner enters or is deemed to
have entered into possession of the Chaka allotted to him in accordance with the provisions of
this Act, the following consequences shall ensue(1) The right, title, interest and liabilities of every land-owner in respect of his original holding
shall cease:
Provided that where the land-owner is allotted his original holding either wholly or in part in the
Final Consolidation Scheme his right, title, interest and liability in such holding or part thereof,
as the case may be, shall remain unaffected;
(2) Every landowner shall have the same right, title, interest and liabilities in the "Chaka" allotted
to him as he had in the original holding and the rights and interests of all other persons in respect

of such original holdings shall stand transferred to the said "Chaka" or to such part thereof as
specified in the Final Consolidation Scheme."
Section 36 of the Consolidation Act gives the Consolidation Commissioner powers of revision
against any decision of the Director of Consolidation. Section 37 confers suo motu power of
revision on the Consolidation Commissioner and the Director, Consolidation and in doing so
those authorities may call for and examine the records of any case decided or proceedings taken
up by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by any such
authority.
Section 41 of the Consolidation Act provides for closure of consolidation operation which shall
be after preparation and publication of final R.O.R. under Section 22, though the operation of the
provisions of Chapter-IV relating to enforcement of the final consolidation scheme as contained
in the final R.O.R. may continue. Section 41 of the Act is quoted here in below:
. Closure of consolidation operations - (1) As soon as may be after the final maps and the records
have been prepared under Section 22, the State Government shall issue a notification to the affect
that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and then the village or villages
forming part of the unit shall cease to be under the consolidation operations:
Provided that the issue of a notification under this section shall not affect the operation of the
provisions contained in Chapter IV.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), consolidation operations shall not be
deemed to have been closed in respect of any case or proceeding pending under the provisions of
this Act on the date of issue of notification under Sub-section (1).
(3) The orders passed by the competent authorities in matters referred to in Sub-section (2) shall
be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed.
It is a salutary principle of interpretation of statute that the provision of an Act should be read
harmoniously so as to avoid anomaly and conflict. Hence, in view of the provisions of the
Consolidation Act and OSS Act as discussed above, it must be held that the Consolidation

Commissioner or Director of Consolidation has no authority to examine in exercise of revisional


power under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, the correctness of R.O.R. published under
Section 13(1) of the Act and preceded by publication of cancellation order under Section 5(1) of
the Act. In view of the deeming provision of Section 13(4) of the Consolidation Act an R.O.R.
published under Section 13(1) before publication of cancellation notification under Section 5(1)
shall have all the consequences attached to the R.O.R. as if it is one published under the OSS Act
and, therefore, correctness thereof can be examined by the Settlement Commissioner under
Section 15(b) of the said Act. By exercising power under Section 15 of the OSS Act, the
Settlement Commissioner does not decide right and title in the land. For the reasons aforesaid,
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails and the writ petition is dismissed.
Before parting, this Court puts on record sincere appreciation for the painstaking assistance
rendered by Mr. N.K. Sahu and Mr. U.K. Samal, the learned Amicus curies.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA


Civil Revision No. 130 of 1979
Decided On: 20.08.1986
Appellants: Bishnu Mohan Mallik
Vs.
Respondent: Dhruba Naik
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Agarwala, C.J. and S.C. Mohapatra, J.

The short facts are that the plaintiff filed a Title Suit for recovery of possession of certain lands
with mesne profits in the Court of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar. A Notification Under Section 3(2)
of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972

(Orissa Act 21 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act') in respect of the mouza in question had already been
published in the meantime
The general principle, that the validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings
only on the ground that the Court which passed the decree was Jacking in inherent jurisdiction in
the sense that it could not have seisin of the case because the subject-matter was wholly foreign
to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had been instituted or decree
passed, or some such other ground which could have the effect of rendering the Court entirely
lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or over the parties to it, is wellsettled and undisputable. (See MANU/SC/0041/1961; Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath).
It may well be that in view of the bar created by Section 51 read with Section 4(4) of the Act, the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted but the ouster of jurisdiction was not automatic, and as
the scheme of the Act also suggests, an order has to be passed by the Court in this regard.
There may be an exception to this well-accepted principle, e. g. where a Court with limited
jurisdiction, such as an Industrial Tribunal which has no power to decide a jurisdictional fact, but
wrongly holds or assumes that such facts existed and passes an order in exercise of such assumed
jurisdiction, the order cannot operate as res judicata being void for want of jurisdiction because
want of jurisdiction in such a case is 'aparant' But determination of question of title is generally
the functions of the Civil Court and therefore in such cases the party is debarred from raising the
same questions over and over again. No decision taking a contrary view in the matter was
brought to our notice by the learned Advocate for: the opposite party.
The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bikram Singh's case (supra), while considering
the scope of Section 5 of the U. P. Act, which is in pari materia with the Orissa Act, observed that
the legislature did not take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court completely. It merely directed
stay of the proceedings to avoid conflict of decisions by two competent authorities on one and
the same point between the same parties. After the publication of the Notification Under Section
4of the said Act, the stay of the proceedings as provided Under Section 5 cannot be automatic for
one more reason. The Court before which the suit or the appeal or the proceedings are pending
Will have to decide whether or not the provisions of Section 5 of the Act would apply to the case.
All that the law requires is that the proceedings before it should be stayed, and after the matter is

decided by the Consolidation authorities, the decision is to be communicated to the Court who
shall proceed with the proceeding or the suit, as the case may be. Thereafter, it is clearly laid
down that the effect of Section 5(b)(i) of the Act was not to destroy of take away the jurisdiction
of the Court before whom a suit or an appeal was pending. It remained seized of the case
throughout and ultimately it had to pass a judgment or order or decree in a case. Therefore, it
cannot be said that a decree or order of judgment passed by such a Court would be a nullity even
though it alone had the jurisdiction to pass the order or the decree or the judgment. The Full
Bench referred with approval the view of an earlier Division Bench in Lakhpat Singh v. Dal
Singh (1964 Allahabad Law Journal 1949) that if an appeal is decided on merits in ignorance of
the fact that a Notification Under Section 4 of the Act has been issued, the judgment would not
be a nullity but it would be a case of the Court acting with material irregularity in the exercise of
its jurisdiction
From the discussion and authorities noticed above, it becomes clear that the Civil Court being a
Court having the initial and otherwise inherent jurisdiction over the subject-matter to entertain
the suit under the Code of Civil Procedure which has been ousted by a subsequent legislation, a
special statute no doubt created a Court of pro tanto jurisdiction, but nonetheless, if the Civil
Court decides rightly or wrongly that it is competent to maintain the suit and ultimately passes a
decree, then the executing Court being a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction cannot question the
legality of that decision on an objection Under Section 47, C.P.C., as that would obviously
amount to going behind the decree.
On the above discussions, I am led to the conclusion that the executing Court has committed a se
Before, however, parting with this case, yet another argument that was advanced on behalf of the
judgment-debtor has to be noticed.
It was submitted that in any view of the matter, the decree would not be executed as in the
meantime the revenue authorities have already closed the ceiling proceeding so much so that
Chaks have already been formed Under Section 31 of the Act and distributed. It was therefore
submitted that at this stage it is not possible to going back to the decree stage with respect to the
suit land.

This plea of the judgment-debtor, in my opinion, has got two simple answers, namely. (1) this
question does not arise from the order under revision and therefore the facts which have been
stated before us cannot be properly examined, and (2) even assuming that the facts stated are
correct, the decree of the Civil Court being binding on the judgment-debtor as well as on the
revenue Courts, it could not be rendered nugatory or unenforceable at the instance of the
judgment-debtor by keeping the revenue Courts uniformed of this fact and obtaining the orders
in his favour. Accordingly, suit orders as are based on mistake of facts as also of law cannot
supersede the binding force of the Civil Court decree. Otherwise, the whole theory of res judicata
will become meaning-less and deprive the successful party to enjoy the benefits of the decision
of a competent Civil Court in his favour by the act of an unscrupulous litigant. For this obvious
proposition, no authority need be cited.rious error of jurisdiction in holding that the decree under
execution was a nullity.
This application must therefore succeed, and it is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, i
leave the parties to bear their own costs

REFERENCE

THE ORISSA CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF

FRAGMENTATION OF LAND ACT, 1972


MANUPATRA
SCC ONLINE
WESTLAW

You might also like