STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SARAT CHANDRA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is by the State Government against the order of abatement of the suit passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge. Puri.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the State; through the Collector and the Divisional Forest Officer, Puri filed Title Suit No. 59/231 of 1992/88 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Puri for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and that the decree dated 6.4.1983 passed in Original Suit No. 150 of 1981 -I was not binding on the plaintiffs, nor does it affect their right, title and possession over the said land. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs was claimed. It was pleaded that the suit property was an intermediary interest known as : Laxminarayan Estate and the entire estate vested in the State free from all encumbrances, under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. 1951 (hereinafter called 'the O.E.A. Act) since November, 27, 1953, On and from the date of vesting, the entire land so wasted remained fallow and none of the intermediaries made any application for settlement of these lands under Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act. In or around 1979, casurina plantations were made by the State over those lands. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a collusive suit bearing O.S. No. 150 of 1981 before the Subordinate Judge, Puri claiming for declaration of tenancy on the plea that they had been inducted as bhag tenants in respect of those lands by one Suresh Chandra Bose and they used to raise vegetables and give half of the usufructs as bhag dues. It was pleaded that State Government though a necessary party was deliberately not made a party thereto, to the suit and an ex parte decree was obtained by the defendants. Pursuant to such illegal decree they got their names mutate(error) in the revenue records.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Additional Standing Counsel, for the petitioners -State and Shri P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opp. parties and having gone through the records, the main question that needs determination is whether in view of the prayer and the pleadings of the parties, the Consolidation authorities are competent to decide and adjudicate the dispute within the scope and ambit of the Consolidation Act.