MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Civil Courts Lack Competence to Alter Consolidation Authorities’ Final Orders: Supreme Court Upholds Rights Determined by Consolidation Officer

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

The Supreme Court  restored the decree of a trial court, confirming the possession and title of land in favor of appellant Ram Balak Singh, in a significant ruling that emphasized the conclusive nature of decisions made by consolidation authorities under the Bihar Consolidation Act.

 

The appeal addressed the interplay between civil court jurisdiction and orders passed by consolidation authorities. The Court clarified that civil courts are not competent to vary or set aside decisions of consolidation authorities that have attained finality under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.

 

Ram Balak Singh, the appellant, contested for the recognition of his rights over a piece of land initially leased to his adoptive father and recorded in consolidation records. The State of Bihar contested the claim, citing the land as state-owned pond land. After a favorable initial ruling, the appellate court and the High Court reversed the decree, leading to this appeal.

 

The Supreme Court noted that the Bihar Consolidation Act bars civil courts from altering or setting aside any orders made by consolidation authorities concerning land rights. Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “The scheme of the Consolidation Act ensures that rights determined by consolidation authorities remain final and conclusive.”

The bench discussed the limited scope of civil courts in matters where consolidation authorities have adjudicated rights conclusively. The justices articulated that such matters are outside the civil courts’ purview, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the decisions made during consolidation proceedings.

It was established that the consolidation order favoring the appellant was never contested by the State and thus remained binding. “Civil courts lack the competence to disregard the final orders of consolidation authorities, which hold the sanctity of judicial determinations in the realm of land rights,” Justice Varale remarked.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the appellate courts, reinstated the trial court’s decree, and confirmed the title and possession of the land to Ram Balak Singh. The court decreed that the civil suit filed by Singh was maintainable, contrary to the appellate judgments, thus allowing the appeal without any order as to costs.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024.

Ram Balak Singh vs State of Bihar 

Latest Legal News