BASANTA KUMAR SAHU Vs. BHIKARI CHARAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petittioner calls in question legality of order passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa in a proceeding underSection 37 of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragemantation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, the 'Act') accepting plea of adoption raised by Bhikari Charan Sahu (opp. party No. 1) and reversing adjudications in favour of petitioner as done by the Consolidation Officer, Kendrapara and Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range -Ill, Kendrapara.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects is necessary. The genealogy so far as relevant is essentially as follows : Mana Radha Madhu Gadei Sobani Chintamani Dinabandhu Banambar Dukhei: Ullucha Sukhei|Basanta Petitioner's claim is based on adjudication in T. S. No. 16 of 1936 of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. According to him land in question was allotted to him in the final decree proceeding in the aforesaid case. Bhikari on the other hand, claimed to have been adopted by Dukhei. As per the genealogy, Mana had three sons viz. Radha, Madhu and Gadei. So far as present dispute is concerned, it relates to Gadei's branch. Gadei had two sons namely. Dukhei and Sukhei. Dukhei's widow is Ullucha, whereas petitioner is Sukhei's son. Undisputadly, no child was born to Dukhei and Ullucha. Bhikari claims to have been adapted by them. The question whether there was any adoption is subject -matter of dispute in T. S. No. 19 of 1963 pending before the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. The Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director did not go into the claim of adoption, being of the view that such a question cannot be adjudicated by any authority under the Act. The appellate authority further held, that even if plea of adoption is entertained, the same was not established.' Before the revisional authority it was stated that revision filed by Bhikari was not entertained, because of bar imposed underSection 14 of the Act. The Commissioner entertained the application in exercise of power underSection 37 (1) of the Act, though he accepted that bar underSection 14 operated. Taking note of school leaving certificate of the year 1944 and admission register of the year 1949, he held that plea of adoption has been established. He was of the view that final decree relied upon by. petitioner did n6t specifically show about allotment of land in dispute in favour of petitioner. Accordingly he accepted Bhikari's prayer for revision.

(3.) THE Consolidation authorities exercise special jurisdiction conferred upon them by the statute. Section 51 of the Act throws sufficient light on the matter. Questions relating to right, title interest and liability in any land are to be decided by the consodation 1 authorities, except those which can be decided by Civil Court -and are I therefore, out of bounds by them. In deciding question of right, title. I interest and liability in the land, questions and issues relatable thereto I arise for decision. Decisions on the question of right, title, interest I and liability depend and hinge on decision on the connection questions I which are to be decided ancillarily and incidentally. It is to be noted I that in order to secure relief prayed for suitor has to in some cases clear i hurdles and impediments like judgment or order of a Court or a docu 1 merit. ' Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to set aside judgment or a I document which is voidable. Void documents or transactions being I non set in the eye of law. can be ignored. Where consideration 1 relates to such a document or transaction, consoldation authorities have I jurisdiction. ,But where controversy centres around documents, A transactions, judgments etc which are voidable, jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court alone. Questions which do not necessitate inter - ference of the Civil Court and can be ancillarily and incidentally decided and on the resolution of which would depend on decision as 'to right, title, interest and liability in land, come within jurisdiction of consolidation authorities, Questions of relationship pertain to legal character or status. It was held in Jairam Samantray v. Baikuntha Samantray and Ors., 1991 (I) OLR 29 that question of adoption can be decided by the consolidation authorities. The Consolidation Officer and appellate authority had not decided the question of adoption being of the view that such a question was not to be decided by the consolidation authorities, and as a consequence dispute relating to adoption was not adjudicated by them. The Commissioner was right in his view that such a question can be decided by the consolidation authorities