Ram Balak Singh vs State Of Bihar

2024 INSC 360 REPORTABLE

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)

JUDGMENT

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

Signature Not Verified R.S.P. No.821 situate in village Kishanpur, district Sit- Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2024.05.01

amarhi, Bihar. This area of land was carved out from C.S.P. 15:49:00 IST Reason:

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-

ings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 1.

5. Since the aforesaid land was incorrectly recorded in the

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.

8. The summons of the suit were received by the officers of the

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