ARNAPURNA SINGH Vs. RAMA CHANDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment arises out of two writ applications, both filed by Arnapurna Singh challenging the combined judgment delivered by the learned Commissioner, Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision Cases Nos. 204 to 209 of 2015.

(2.) The facts of the case are similar in all the cases. Certain lands were recorded in the name of Haramani Singh. It is claimed by the petitioner that at the time of her marriage, all these lands have been gifted orally by Haramani Singh in favour of the present petitioner. It is alleged that though the land was in possession of the petitioner, without her consent and without her knowledge, the said Haramani Singh sold different portions of land to different opposite parties. Then the village was published under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, (for brevity, "the Act") for consolidation. During pendency of the consolidation, the petitioner filed a civil suit, which was disposed of on the date of filing. It is borne out from the record that on 13.1992 the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara in T.S. No. 48 of 1992 recorded that the plaint is admitted, the defendant appeared by executing special power in favour of the B.C. Jena, Advocate and both the parties have filed compromise petition and the case was disposed of on compromise. It may be noted here that Haramani Singh did not appear in person. Now on the basis of this compromise, the petitioner claims that the entire property should be recorded in her name and all the sale deeds should be declared void. At the outset, Ms. Ratho, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that there was no dispute about the fact that the village in question was notified under Section 3 (1) of the Act by the time the suit was filed and as per Section 51, no Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit for deciding the right, title, interest and liabilities in land lying in the consolidate area. It is appropriate to take note of Section 51 of the Act, which reads as follows:

(3.) Mr. P. Behera, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Division Bench in Hara Prasad Das and others v. Ramballav Das and others, 1985 (1) OLR 464 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that where second appeal was pending before this Court at the time the notification of consolidation was issued under Section 3 (1) of the Act, which fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and accordingly, the second appeal was disposed of without being aware that the consolidation operation has started for the village where the said land situates. It was in the considered view of the Court that the judgment and decree passed by this Court in the Second Appeal is binding and valid. However, the facts of this case are different. If the area is declared to be consolable and consolidation operation was started under Section 3 (1) of the Act, as per Section 4 of the Act, all pending cases abate. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and the Civil proceeding continued then as per the Division Bench judgment, the decree will be valid and binding. So, this judgment is not applicable to this case in hand as in this case the suit was filed after publication of Section 3 (1) notification.