PANCHEI BEWA Vs. ISWAR CHANDRA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in the present writ application lies within a very narrow compass. The authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act 1972 (in short 'the Act') held that the question relating to 'adoption' has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court, and the results are to be reflected in the orders to be passed by the consolidation authorities. The revisional authority, the Commissioner, Consolidation, opp. party No. 3, in the revisional order (Annexure -14) held that the results of civil suit bearing No. 169 of 1985 pending before the Subordinate Judge, Puri, (as the Presiding Officer was designated then) would have binding effect.

(2.) THE position as to which forum has jurisdiction to decide questions relating to adoption was in a fluid stage. In Puni Bewa and Anr. v. Ananta Sahoo and Ors. : 47(1979) CLT 494, Pranabandhu alias Panu Ojha v. Bhikari Maharana alias Ojha : 57(1984) CLT 65 and Krushna Chandra Nayak alias Mohanty and Ors. v. Nisamani Bewa 61(1936) CLT 564, this Court looked at the controversy from different angles. In Puni Bewa's case (supra), a learned Single Judge observed that the Consolidation Officers have not been vested with power to give a declaration of status or to set aside a decree or order of a competent Court. In Pranabandhu's case (supra), it WAS observed that the consolidation authorities exercised special jurisdiction conferred upon them by the statute. They are competent to adjudicate upon right of interest in land. The question of status of a person does not relate to any right or interest in land. It was specifically held that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption. In Krushna Chandra's case (supra), it was observed that where question of states is involved in the suit. . consolidation authorities could not have granted the relief claimed since the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to decide status.

(3.) THE controversy relating to jurisdiction was set at rest by a Division Bench of this Court in Jairam Samantray v. Baikuntha Samantaray and Ors. 1991 (I) OLR 29, 70 (1990) CLT 439. It was held that except in cases where title is claimed on the basis of transactions inter vivos, in most of the cases, title is claimed on the basis of relationship, say as son, father, mother, husband or wife etc. Each such question of relationship is a question pertaining to legal character or status. Where the consolidation authorities are deciding the question of status but a declaration of the law to the effect that the consolidation authorities have no Jurisdiction to decide the question on adoption, if such question arises ancillarily or incidentally for adjudication of right, title and interest in property, is unsupportable.