SUNDARMANI BEWA Vs. DASARATH PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases have come up before this Full Bench on reference by the respective Division Benches, to decide certain important questions of law relating to the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On a reading of the reference orders in the two cases, the points arising for decision may be formulated as follows :

(2.) In Civil Revision No. 169 of 1980, the trial court relying on the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench passed the order under Section 4(4) of the Act holding that the suit abated. The plaintiff filed the revision petition contending that the disputed property being Bagayat land which was not consolidable under the Act his suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the same was maintainable in the civil court and should have been adjudicated upon and decided without being affected by the provisions under Section 4(4) of the Act. The revision petitioner also raised the further question that the authorities under the Act have no power to record forcible possession of the land being with the defendants in the remarks column of the Land Registers. My learned brother R.C. Patnaik, J. before whom the revision petition came up initially considering the importance of the question whether a suit for any relief which the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to grant can be held to have abated simply because consolidation operation is going on in the area, directed the case to be placed before a Division Bench for hearing. Thereafter the case came up before the Division Bench of Justice P.C. Misra and Justice G.B. Patnaik who in their judgement dated 13-11-84 entertained doubt about the correctness of the decision in Jadumani Biswal' s case (AIR 1983 Orissa 114) (supra) and directed the matter to be placed before a larger Bench for decision. That is how the case has come before this Bench.

(3.) In the other case, First Appeal No. 116 of 1973, arising from a suit for partition, an order was passed on 29-7-81 that the suit shall abate in regard to the remaining properties (other than 'Ka' schedule properties) excepting plot No. 111 in Khata No. 181/550 covered by 'Ga' schedule with an area of 6.41 decimals and plot No. 272 in khata No. 59 covered by 'Gha' schedule with an area of 11 decimals. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench of Justice P.C. Misra and Justice G.B. Patnaik on 11-12-84 some dispute was raised whether the plots in respect of which the appeal was held to be continuing were homestead or agricultural land. It was contended by the counsel for defendants respondents that such dispute need not be resolved inasmuch as, according to the Bench decision of this Court reported in (1982) 54 Cut LT 584 the suit is to abate irrespective of the nature of the land. Since the Bench had referred Civil Revision No. 169 of 1980 to a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the aforementioned Division Bench decision, the appeal was also referred to a larger Bench for decision.