In the case of Makhan Singh vs. State of Bihar, a land dispute ensued over the possession of 0.32 decimal land settled by ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer. The plaintiff-appellant, Makhan Singh’s adopted son, sought recognition of his rights over the land, as recorded by the Consolidation Officer in 1979. The State of Bihar claimed jurisdiction over the land, leading to a legal battle. The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment upholding the rights recognized by the Consolidation Authorities in favor of Makhan Singh, setting aside the appellate court’s decision. This landmark decision affirms the importance of respecting consolidation authorities’ orders in land disputes.
Facts
- State Authorities claimed entire land of 4 acre 58 decimal as jalkar, including the suit land, interfering with plaintiff-appellant’s possession.
- Plaintiff-appellant filed Suit No.103/2004 to declare title over suit land settled by ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer in favor of Makhan Singh.
- Plaintiff-appellant, adopted son of Makhan Singh, succeeded to the land in question.
- The suit was decreed in plaintiff-appellant’s favor initially, but reversed in First Appeal and affirmed by the High Court.
- Dispute is regarding 0.32 decimal land settled by ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer in favor of Makhan Singh, inherited by plaintiff-appellant.
- Plaintiff-appellant’s name was duly recorded in revenue/consolidation records following the Correction Order by Consolidation Officer in 1979.
- State has no jurisdiction over the suit land which is in possession of plaintiff-appellant.
- No written statement was filed by the State despite multiple opportunities, leading to the suit being fixed for hearing.
Also Read: Tapas Kumar Das vs. HPCL: LPG Distributorship Location Dispute
Issue
- The key issue to be considered is the validity of the order issued by the Consolidation Authority.
- The question revolves around whether the Civil Court can reverse or ignore the Consolidation Authority’s decision confirming the plaintiff-appellant’s title over the land.
- Section 37 of the Consolidation Act places a bar that needs to be examined in this context.
- The decision of the Consolidation Authority to confirm the plaintiff-appellant’s title and direct the recording of his name in the record of rights under Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act is under scrutiny.
Also Read: Appellant Convicted for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
Arguments
- Plaintiff-appellant argues that he or his predecessor-in-interest has been in possession of the suit land since it was settled in favor of Makhan Singh by the ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer.
- The State of Bihar is contested from claiming the land and disrupting possession without following legal procedures and paying compensation.
- The appellate courts erred in law by reversing the decree of the court of first instance
- The judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer is final and conclusive
- The plaintiff-appellant provided sufficient evidence to establish his right and possession over the suit land
- Defence by the State of Bihar claims that the land of C.S.P. No 332 is pond land and cannot be settled in favor of the plaintiff-appellant
- State of Bihar argues that plaintiff-appellant does not have possession over the land
Also Read: Ownership Dispute: Commissioner’s Order and Revenue Documents
Analysis
- The Consolidation Act prohibits Civil Courts from entertaining suits to vary or set aside decisions of the Consolidation Court.
- Consolidation authorities have the power to determine rights over land under consolidation, except in specific circumstances.
- Orders or entries made by consolidation authorities, which attain finality, must be respected and enforced.
- Civil Courts’ jurisdiction regarding rights determined by the Consolidation Officer is impliedly excluded under the Consolidation Act.
- The plaintiff-appellant did not challenge any decision or order of the Consolidation Court, but sought recognition of rights conferred through consolidation proceedings.
- The State of Bihar did not challenge the order recognizing the plaintiff-appellant’s rights over the land.
- The Consolidation Officer ruled in favor of the plaintiff-appellant after considering documentary and oral evidence.
- Appellate courts erred in disregarding the Consolidation Officer’s order, which was legally sound and recognized rights to the land.
- The Consolidation Act outlines the duties and limitations regarding legal proceedings during consolidation operations.
- Provisions in the Consolidation Act restrict legal actions during consolidation operations and emphasize the authority of consolidation authorities.
- Section 37 of the Consolidation Act explicitly bars Civil Court jurisdiction in matters falling under the Act’s purview.
- Matters concerning changes or transfers in land rights recorded during consolidation must be raised before Consolidation Officer within specified timelines.
- Disputes resolved by consolidation authorities cannot be reopened upon publication of the register.
- The Consolidation Act provides a separate forum for matters falling under its jurisdiction, excluding the Civil Court’s authority.
- The plaintiff-appellant’s rights recognized by consolidation authorities should be upheld, and their order cannot be ignored by Civil Courts.
- A civil suit for declaration of rights over land is not barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act even if rights were recognized by the Consolidation Court.
- The suit cannot challenge any order passed by the Consolidation Court under the Consolidation Act.
- The Civil Court cannot ignore or reverse the order of the Consolidation Officer once finality is attained.
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed with no order regarding costs.
- The impugned judgment and orders of the appellate courts dated 20.10.2011 and 14.07.2008 have been set aside.
- The judgment of the court of the first instance dated 04.07.2006 has been restored.
- As a result, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been decreed.
Case Title: RAM BALAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (2024 INSC 360)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001627-001627 – 2016
