MADAN MOHAN JENA Vs. D C SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Raghunathpur in a proceeding Under Section 9 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, the 'Act') is primarily the subject -matter of challenge. Addition - ally it is submitted that the officers appointed under the Act to exercise various functions are not well equipped to deal with the complicated questions of fact and law, and therefore, the authorities who are expected to substitute the judicial officers trying suits in Civil Courts, by and large are deficient and as a result the administration of justice has become a casualty.

(2.) BEFORE we deal with the larger question relating to functioning of the officers appointed under the Act, it is necessary to deal with the main challenge. The fact situation is almost undisputed. Objection Case Mo. 3256/730 of 1989 was filed Under Section 9 (3) of the Act by 35 persons who are arraigned as opposite party Nos. 6 to 40 in this writ application. The four petitioners along with pro forma opposite party Nos. 41 and 42 are the defendants in the said objection case The dispute revolves round a tank situated in mouza Dharadharpur appertaining to sabik plot No. 478 in sabik khata No. 127 of the said mouza, which corresponds to plot No. 547 in khata No. 925 so far as the settlement of 1983 is concerned. The oresent opposite parties 6 to 40 (hereinafter referred to as the 'objectors') questioned correctness of entries in the records. The petitioners in the present writ application filed their defence statement putting forth their claims in that regard. Though dated 17 -3 -1990, it was filed on 4 -4 -1990. After filing of the defence statement, the objectors filed another statement which was nomenclatured as 'written statement of the objectors'. Acceptability of this statement is the subject -matter of challenge. The defendants raised objection to acceptability of such a statement on the ground that filing of such statement is not authorised in law. Their plea in essence was that stand taken by objectors in their claim petition originally filed was sought to be varied by averments in the so -called written statement which is at complete variance with that taken in original claim petition. The objectors took the stand that statement styled as written statement was filed to clarify certain averments which were originally there in the claim petition. But clarification was necessary because of stand taken by some of the defendants. The Consolidation Officer was of the view that procedure is handmaid of justice and cause of justice can never be allowed to be obviated by any procedural technicalities, and written statement filed by the objectors being in the nature of clarifica - tion, same can be accepted for consideration.

(3.) TAKING of inconsistent pleas is not prohibited in law. As stipulated in Order 6, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') inconsistent pleas can be taken provided the plaint is amended. Right, title and interest in the property is to be adjudicated by the authorities under the Act. Application of CPC to the proceedings under the Act is limited to the extent provided in Sec, 44 of the Act, and Rule 3 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Rules, 1973 (in short, the 'Rules'). Where the object is that the questions relating to right, title and interest in the property shall be adjudicated by the authorities under the Act, it is appropriate that all relevant facts and materials should be before the adjudicating authorities so that an effective and proper adjudication can be made. In such matters technicality should not be considered relevant and nomenclature should not be treated to be decisive. Where civil rights are to be adjudicated procedures akin to those provided in CPC by and large are is to be followed unless they are at variance with those specifically set out in the Act and the Rules. By adoption of those procedures no prejudice to the parties is likely to be caused. Provisions of CPC and the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act') should be kept in view by the adjudicating authorities though the Act and the Rules do not provide their application except to limited extent. Authorities should proceed keeping in view principles and requirements of principles of natural justice, Observance of rule of law is of vital importance and is compulsory not only for those who are to obey the law but also for those who are to enforce the law. Principles of natural justice constitute heart beat of rule of Jaw. They supplement law. For over a century. Courts have been at pains to lay down principles to guide authorities who have to decide questions in judicial or quasi -judicial manner and the insistence has always been on adherance to principles of natural justice.