RAM BALAK SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

                   [2024] 6 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 360

                             Ram Balak Singh
                                     v.
                          State of Bihar and Anr.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 1627 of 2016)
                                 01 May 2024
   [Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       In view of the bar imposed u/s. 37 of the Bihar Consolidation of
       Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the order
       of the Consolidation Authority confirming the title of the appellant
       over the suit land and directing for recording his name in the record
       of rights, liable to be reversed or ignored by the Civil Court.

                                   Headnotes
       Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of
       Fragmentation Act, 1956 – s. 37 – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil
       Court – Order of the Consolidation Authority confirming the
       title of the appellant over the suit land, liable to be reversed or
       ignored by the Civil Court – On facts, recognition of appellant’s
       rights over the suit land by the consolidation authorities,
       however, subsequently, the State started interfering with
       the possession of the appellant – Suit filed by the appellant
       for declaring his title over the suit land and to confirm his
       possession over it – Decreed in his favour by the trial court,
       however, the appellate courts discarded the order of the
       Consolidation Officer and dismissed the suit – Correctness:
       Held: Revenue entries are not documents of title and do not
       ordinarily confer or extinguish title in the land but, nonetheless,
       where the revenue authorities or the consolidation authorities are
       competent to determine the rights of the parties by exercising
       powers akin to the Civil Courts, any order or entry made by
       such authorities which attains finality has to be respected and
       given effect to – Consolidation Officer referring to the patta by
       which the said land was settled in favour of the appellant’s father
       and the adoption deed directed the name of the appellant to be
       recorded in the record of rights – Rights of the parties over the
       suit land stood crystalised with the passing of the order by the

* Author
2                                                            [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Consolidation Officer which became final and conclusive – State
     never challenged the same – When the rights of the appellant have
     been determined and recognised by the consolidation authorities,
     the order of the Consolidation Officer to that effect in favour of
     the appellant could not have been ignored by the Civil Court –
     Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the rights determined
     by the Consolidation Officer stands impliedly excluded by the very
     scheme of the Consolidation Act – Appellate courts below erred in
     holding otherwise discarding the order of the Consolidation Officer
     which was sacrosanct as to the rights in respect to the suit land
     – Civil suit for declaration of rights in respect of land where the
     Consolidation Court has already passed an order recognizing the
     rights of one of the parties is not barred by s. 37, as it does not
     propose to challenge any order passed by the Consolidation Court
     under the Act and that the Civil Court is not competent to either
     ignore or reverse the order passed by the Consolidation Officer
     once it has attained finality – Thus, the impugned judgment and
     orders of the appellate courts set aside and that of the trial court
     is restored. [Paras 17-26]
     Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of
     Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Scheme of the Consolidation Act
     – Explained. [Paras 13, 14, 16]

                                List of Acts
     Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation
     Act, 1956; Constitution of India.

                             List of Keywords
     Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court; Order of the Consolidation
     Authority; Title over suit land; Recording of name in the record
     of rights; Revenue entries, not documents of title; Correction of
     the entry; Adoption deed; Declaration of rights; Cause of action;
     Closure of consolidation proceedings; Recognition of rights by the
     consolidation authorities.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1627 of 2016
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2011 of the High Court of
     Patna in SA No. 384 of 2008
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                            3

                     Ram Balak Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr.


                                    Appearances for Parties
       Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ms. Nandadevi Deka, Kwan Singhjaggi,
       Zain Haider, Vivek Singh, C.P. Rajwar, Rohan Chandra, Advs. for
       the Appellant.
       Manish Kumar, Suyash Vyash, Advs. for the Respondents.
                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                               Judgment
       Pankaj Mithal, J.
1.     This is plaintiff’s appeal arising out of a suit for possession and
       confirmation of his possession over the suit land which was decreed
       in his favour by the court of first instance but the decree was set
       aside in First Appeal and was affirmed by the High Court.
2.     The dispute in the suit is regarding 0.32 decimal of land of R.S.P.
       No.821 situate in village Kishanpur, district Sitamarhi, Bihar. This
       area of land was carved out from C.S.P. No.332 of Khata No.196
       which belonged to Rambati Kuwer, the ex-landlord.
3.     The aforesaid ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer settled the above area
       of the suit land in favour of Makhan Singh, son of late Ram Govind
       Singh vide lease deed (patta) of 1341 fasli whereupon the said
       Makhan Singh continued in possession of it during his lifetime.
       The said Makhan Singh had no issue. It is alleged that he adopted
       plaintiff-appellant who inherited the suit land after Makhan Singh.
       Accordingly, plaintiff-appellant is presently in possession of the suit
       land which had been in his family’s possession ever since it was
       settled by ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer in favour of Makhan Singh.
4.     It so happened that the village was brought under consolidation in
       accordance with the Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention
       of Fragmentation Act, 19561.
5.     Since the aforesaid land was incorrectly recorded in the name of the
       State, the plaintiff-appellant in accordance with Section 10(B) of the
       Consolidation Act applied for the correction of revenue/consolidation
       records. The Consolidation Officer, Bathnaha upon following the


1    Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation Act’
4                                                            [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     due process of law vide its order dated 12.11.1979, directed for the
     correction of the record-of-rights. The name of the plaintiff-appellant
     was directed to be recorded in respect of 0.32 decimal area of land
     of R.S.P. No.821. The aforesaid order was duly implemented and the
     name of the plaintiff-appellant was entered into the record-of-rights.
     The aforesaid order is final and conclusive. It was not challenged
     by any party, not even by the State of Bihar in any higher forum.
6.   Subsequently, the State Authorities started claiming the entire land
     of 4 acre 58 decimal of C.S.P. No.332 as jalkar (pond land) which
     included the suit land also and thus allegedly started interfering
     in the possession of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant
     having no other option after service of notice dated 09.09.2004 as
     contemplated by Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, instituted
     the Suit No.103/2004 ‘Ram Balak Singh, s/o late Makhan Singh vs.
     State of Bihar and Anr.’ for declaring his title over the suit land as
     described in Schedule-A to the plaint and to confirm his possession
     over it.
7.   The aforesaid suit was instituted on the allegations as narrated
     above that the suit land belonged to Rambati Kuwer, the ex-landlord,
     who settled it in favour of Makhan Singh in 1341 fasli. The plaintiff-
     appellant is the adopted son of the said Makhan Singh and as such
     succeeded to the said land. During the consolidation proceedings
     on petitions/objections under Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act,
     the Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 12.11.1979
     ruled in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and directed his name to be
     recorded in the record-of-rights which order attained finality and has
     been implemented. Therefore, the State has no right, title or jurisdiction
     over the suit land which is in possession of the plaintiff-appellant.
8.   The summons of the suit were received by the officers of the State
     but on their behalf no written statement was filed to controvert the
     plaint allegations despite several opportunities. Lastly on 04.02.2006,
     the right of the State to file written statement was closed and the
     suit was fixed for hearing under Order VIII Rule X of Code of Civil
     Procedure. Since the plaint allegations were not controverted, no issue
     actually arose between the parties for determination, nonetheless,
     the trial court after formulating the point of determination i.e. whether
     the plaintiff-appellant has been able to establish his case over the
     suit land by any cogent and reliable evidence proceeded to decide
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                           5

               Ram Balak Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr.


     the suit on merits. The suit was decreed but the decree, as stated
     earlier, was reversed by the first appellate court and its decision was
     upheld by the High Court.
9.   The plaintiff-appellant has now come up before this Court by filing
     Special Leave Petition, which on leave being granted has been
     registered as Civil Appeal. We have heard Ms. Nandadevi Deka,
     learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Suyash Vyash, learned
     counsel for the respondents.
10. The primary argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant
    is that he or his predecessor-in-interest is in possession of the suit
    land ever since it was settled in favour of Makhan Singh by the
    ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer. During the consolidation proceedings,
    the rights of the plaintiff-appellant over the said land were accepted
    and vide order dated 12.11.1979, his name was directed to be
    recorded in the record-of-rights. In this way, the right and title of the
    plaintiff-appellant over the suit land stood crystalized. Therefore, the
    State of Bihar cannot in any way claim the said land and disturb his
    possession without following any procedure of law and payment of
    compensation. The appellate courts below have manifestly erred
    in law in reversing the decree of the court of first instance as the
    judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer is final and conclusive
    and cannot be overruled or brushed aside to record any findings
    contrary to it, more particularly when the plaintiff-appellant has
    adduced sufficient evidence to establish his right and possession
    over the suit land.
11. Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar set up the defence that the
    entire land of C.S.P. No. 332 is the pond land and it cannot be settled
    in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. He does not have any possession
    over the same. Secondly, in view of the bar imposed by Section
    37 of the Consolidation Act, the civil suit as filed by the plaintiff-
    appellant itself was not maintainable and therefore the appellate
    courts below have not erred in reversing the order of the trial court
    and dismissing the suit.
12. On the submissions advanced by the parties and under the facts
    and circumstances of the case as narrated above, the moot question
    which arises for our consideration is: whether in view of the bar
    imposed under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, the order of the
    Consolidation Authority confirming the title of the plaintiff-appellant
6                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     over the suit land and directing for recording his name in the record
     of rights under Section 10(B) of Consolidation Act, is liable to be
     reversed or ignored by the Civil Court.
13. A bare reading of the provisions of the Consolidation Act would reveal
    that upon declaration of the State Government of its intention to bring
    about a scheme of Consolidation in the village(s) and till the close of
    the consolidation operation, the duty of preparing and maintaining the
    record of rights and the village maps of each village shall be performed
    by the Director of Consolidation and no suit or legal proceeding in
    respect of any land in such area(s) shall be entertained by any court.
    The Consolidation Act even prohibits the transfer by any person of
    land falling within the notified area without the previous sanction of
    the Consolidation Officer during the consolidation operation. It further
    provides that no question in respect of any entry made in the map or
    register prepared in relation to the consolidation area, which might
    or ought to have been raised before the consolidation authorities
    shall be permitted to be raised or heard at any subsequent stage
    of the consolidation proceeding. The Consolidation Act specifically
    provides that all matters relating to changes and transfers affecting
    any rights or interests recorded in the register of land may be raised
    before the Consolidation Officer within the time prescribed and the
    disputes in this regard once decided cannot be reopened on the
    publication of the register.
14. Section 37 of the Consolidation Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil
    Courts and it reads as under:
          “No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or application to
          vary or set aside any decision or order given or passed
          under this Act with respect to any other matter for which
          a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under
          this Act.”
15. In short, the scheme of the Consolidation Act provides that all rights
    in the land under consolidation, if any, would be determined by the
    consolidation authorities and the publication of the register of rights
    thereunder would be final and conclusive and it cannot be disputed at
    any subsequent stage. The aforesaid adjudication of the rights over
    the land under consolidation has not been specifically subjected to
    the rights of parties, if any, determined by the Civil Court. It is to be
    noted that the Legislature in its wisdom has provided for a separate
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                            7

               Ram Balak Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr.


     forum to deal with any matter for which a proceeding could or ought
     to have been taken under the Consolidation Act in the course of
     consolidation and bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
16. Under the scheme of the Consolidation Act, the consolidation
    authorities are fully competent to deal with the issue of title over the
    land under consolidation except under certain contingencies. Thus,
    the consolidation authorities have the powers of the Civil Court to
    decide the question of the title subject to the judicial review by the
    High Court under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
    In other words, the consolidation authorities have the status of the
    deemed courts and have the powers akin to the Civil Courts to decide
    the rights and title of the parties over the land under consolidation
    and, at the same time, oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
17. We are conscious of the fact that revenue entries are not documents
    of title and do not ordinarily confer or extinguish title in the land but,
    nonetheless, where the revenue authorities or the consolidation
    authorities are competent to determine the rights of the parties by
    exercising powers akin to the Civil Courts, any order or entry made
    by such authorities which attains finality has to be respected and
    given effect to.
18. Here in the case at hand, there is no dispute to the fact that
    0.32 decimal of R.S.P. No. 821 situate in village Kishanpur, Distt.
    Sitamarhi, Bihar, was settled by the ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer in
    favour of Makhan Singh through patta (lease deed), the execution
    of which is not in dispute. The said Makhan Singh adopted the
    plaintiff-appellant vide deed dated 27.05.1957 (Exh-2). The order
    of the Chakbandi Officer, Bathnaha (Exh -7) demonstrates that the
    plaintiff-appellant had filed Case No.11 of 1979 under Section 10(B)
    of the Consolidation Act for the correction of the entry in respect
    of the suit land and that the Consolidation Officer vide order dated
    12.11.1979 on the basis of the documents and the oral evidence
    adduced before him ruled that plaintiff-appellant is the adopted son
    of Makhan Singh; that he is in possession of the suit land and no
    villager or any other party has any objection if the same is recorded
    in his name. The Consolidation Officer further referring to the patta
    by which the said land was settled in favour of Makhan Singh and
    the adoption deed directed the name of the plaintiff-appellant to be
    recorded in the record of rights.
8                                                            [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


19. It is an admitted fact that after the closure of the consolidation
    proceedings when the possession of the plaintiff-appellant came
    to be interfered with by the State, he was forced to file a suit for
    declaration of his rights over the said land irrespective of the finality
    of the order of the Consolidation Officer. The cause of action in the
    said suit was a fresh cause of action arising after the closure of
    consolidation proceedings. In the said suit no contest was made by
    the State of U.P., neither any written statement was filed nor any
    evidence was adduced on its behalf. The court of first instance on
    the basis of the evidence both documentary and oral adduced by
    the plaintiff-appellant decreed the suit and held him to be the owner
    in possession of the suit land.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the rights of the
    parties over the suit land stood crystalised with the passing of the
    order dated 12.11.1979 by the Consolidation Officer which became
    final and conclusive. The State of Bihar never challenged the said
    order. It is not its case that the aforesaid order has been obtained
    by concealment of facts or by playing fraud upon the consolidation
    authorities. The State of Bihar at no point of time came forward to
    claim the right, title or interest of disputed land before any forum
    either the consolidation authorities or the Civil Court, rather forced
    the plaintiff-appellant to institute the civil suit despite recognition of
    his rights by the consolidation authorities.
21. In view of the above, when the rights of the plaintiff-appellant have
    been determined and recognised by the consolidation authorities,
    the order of the Consolidation Officer to that effect in favour of the
    plaintiff-appellant could not have been ignored by the Civil Court.
    The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the rights determined
    by the Consolidation Officer stands impliedly excluded by the
    very scheme of the Consolidation Act. The appellate courts below
    completely fell in error in holding otherwise discarding the order of
    the Consolidation Officer which was sacrosanct as to the rights in
    respect to the suit land.
22. Insofar as, the bar of Civil Court imposed by Section 37 of the
    Consolidation Act is concerned, a plain reading of the said provision
    would reveal that the Civil Court is prohibited from entertaining any
    suit to vary or set aside any decision or order of the Consolidation
    Court passed under the Act in respect of the matter for which the
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                           9

               Ram Balak Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr.


     proceedings could have or ought to have been taken under the
     Consolidation Act.
23. In the instant case, the plaintiff-appellant has not instituted any
    suit either to vary or set aside any decision or order passed by
    the Consolidation Court under the Consolidation Act. The plaintiff-
    appellant had simply filed a suit for recognising the rights which
    have been conferred upon him by the Consolidation Court and has
    not filed a suit challenging any order passed by the Consolidation
    Court under the Act. Therefore, the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court
    imposed by Section 37 is not applicable to the present suit which
    is a simpliciter for declaration of his rights over the suit land on the
    basis of the order of the Consolidation Court.
24. In view of the facts and circumstances, even though there was no
    necessity on the part of the plaintiff-appellant to have instituted any
    civil suit for declaration of his rights over the suit land inasmuch as
    his rights over the same stood determined by the Consolidation Court
    vide order dated 12.11.1979, nonetheless, a suit as filed by him is
    not barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, as it does not
    propose to challenge any order passed by the Consolidation Court
    under the Consolidation Act.
25. Thus, our answer to the question framed in paragraph 12 above
    is that a civil suit for declaration of rights in respect of land where
    the Consolidation Court has already passed an order recognizing
    the rights of one of the parties is not barred by Section 37 of the
    Consolidation Act and that the Civil Court is not competent to either
    ignore or reverse the order passed by the Consolidation Officer once
    it has attained finality.
26. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and
    orders of the appellate courts dated 20.10.2011 and 14.07.2008 are
    set aside and that of the court of the first instance dated 04.07.2006
    is restored. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant stands
    decreed.
27. The appeal is allowed with no order as to cost.

     Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain                   Result of the case:
                                                            Appeal allowed.